This section is online for reference only. No new content will be added. no deletion either...
Go to Current Forums ...with millions of posts
     | Thursday, September 07, 2000 - 07:05 am I don't like it when people are ignorant (and loud about it) about other people's beliefs. Since I grew up in a Christian and Muslim family at the same time... I try to to clear up the misinformed whether they be Christian or Muslim. Just wanted to say... The Pope is the head of Catholicism, not all of Christianity. What he says applies to the Catholics. Just like the ayatollah doesn't direct Sunnis. It doesn't matter what he says since you don't follow him. Same with many Christians and the Pope. Only the Catholics mostly care about what he says.
|
| | Friday, September 08, 2000 - 05:32 am Hello, Runta You have already dictated that you are somali christian.....and again you life in christian country, so what are crying? It just happen that I haven't met any somali christian in my live neither I am looking for to meet too. It is up to us if we are ignorant or not, so just stay out in our business !!
|
| | Friday, September 08, 2000 - 10:15 am "The Pope is the head of Catholicism, not all of Christianity" are you saying that the catholics are not christians?
|
| | Sunday, September 10, 2000 - 10:24 am No asad, I'm saying that just like who the Shiites look to for leadership and who the Sunnis respect are different because though they both claim to be Muslims they have different views. So every religion has people within that has different views and leaders that represent those views.
|
| | Sunday, September 10, 2000 - 11:00 am "So every religion has people within that has different views and leaders that represent those views." that is not the truth. you said that the pope is the head of catholicism. know that there is no clergy like the pope that the sunnis follow. if you think the sunnis have someone who heads the muslims now, tell us who is the head of islam that the sunnis follow, runta?
|
| | Sunday, September 10, 2000 - 12:35 pm RUNTA has the same unerstanding of god as catholics do, even if RUNTA TRIES TO OPPOSE THE CATHOLICS. As long as the basic message of GOD in all christian sects is the same, their difference is a matTer of interest and dogma. This is what all christians are supposed to follow and view CONCERNING GOD. "Creed of Nicea" in 325C.E. " the birth of TRINITY AND THE DEATH OF MONOTHEISM. "Whoever wishes to be saved must, above all, keep the Catholic faith. For unless a person keeps this faith whole and entire he will undoubtedly be lost forever. This is what the Catholic faith teaches: we worship one God in the Trinity and the Trinity in unity. We distinguish among the persons, but we do not divide the substance. For the Father is a distinct person; the Son is a distinct person; and the Holy Spirit is a distinct person. Still the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit have one divinity, equal glory, and coeternal majesty. What the Father is, the Son is, and the Holy Spirit is. The Father is uncreated, the Son is uncreated, and the Holy Spirit is uncreated. The Father is boundless, the Son is boundless, and the Holy Spirit is boundless. The Father is eternal, the Son is eternal, and the Holy Spirit is eternal. Nevertheless, there are not three eternal beings, but one eternal being. Thus there are not three uncreated beings, nor three boundless beings, but one uncreated being and one boundless being. Likewise, the Father is omnipotent, the Son is omnipotent, and the Holy Spirit is omnipotent. Yet there are not three omnipotent beings, but one omnipotent being. Thus the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. But there are not three gods, but one God. The Father is Lord, the Son is Lord, and the Holy Spirit is Lord. There as not three lords, but one Lord. For according to Christian truth, we must profess that each of the persons individually is God; and according to Christian religion we are forbidden to say that there are three gods or lords. …But the entire three persons are coeternal and coequal with one another….So that, as we have said, we worship complete unity in the Trinity and the Trinity in unity. This, then, is what he who wishes to be saved must believe about the Trinity. This is the Catholic faith. Everyone must believe it, firmly and steadfastly; otherwise He cannot be saved. Amen." Christian sects are many and varied. However, the majority of Christians the world over believe in the following four basic concepts: 1.The Trinity, 2.The divine Sonship of Jesus (pbuh), 3.The original sin, and 4.The death of "the Son of God" on the cross in atonement for the original sin of Adam. " FROM THE BOOK OF"What did really JESUS SAY"
|
| | Sunday, September 10, 2000 - 05:59 pm To Runta: It seems like you have a misconception yourself. Sunnis don't follow blindly what a leader/sheikh/ameer says, just cuz he said so..but Worship Allah, and follow the example that our prophet Mohamed (PBUH) set. And anybody who's educated, knows that the pope preaches to Catholics. To former guest: As an outsider to your religion, your religion is the most confusing one I came across. The son is individual and holy, the lord is indivual, and so is the Holy ghost...but yet they are ONE...not separate...OK. Explain to me this...who created the Heavens and the Earth? not the son and holy ghost..it is God. So he is the one you should worship..coming from your perspective. So. how come you must pray to Jesus..and not to god directly? Why must you have a middle person? "the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. But there are not three gods, but one God. "....just doesn't make sense. its a contridictory statement. Its not logic. Islam is simple, not a complicated religion to comprehend. That is why its for every body on earth. There is one God, Allah in arabic, and he everliving, omnipotent, and Jesus the son of Mary, is his messenger.
|
| | Monday, September 11, 2000 - 12:52 am SUBAN. I am muslim. The message was intended to show the exact confusion. RUNTA however he refuses to associate with CATHOLICS, he is still a christian no matter what. And I quoted that froma book called "What did really jesus say" written by a muslim which I have a copy of it at my apartment. I guess I have cleared your confusion towards my Identity. I am glad you SAW the CONFUSION in their beleifs.
|
| | Monday, September 11, 2000 - 05:37 am Why don't we stop talkin about different belives and try to help each other teach our religion. I know i would love to learn about topic inside the religion... so please let's start it.
|
| | Monday, September 11, 2000 - 05:51 am no...I know that Sunnis don't have "the leader" that they follow. Protestant Christianity has no "pope" either. We do have respected leaders that many Christians consider credible and respectable in what they say. So the pope doesn't represent ALL Christians. That's what I'm saying
|
| | Monday, September 11, 2000 - 01:27 pm But RUNTA, you share with the pope THE BELIEF IN TIRNITY don't you?.
|
| | Monday, September 11, 2000 - 02:26 pm "Three in one, and one in three. they are co-eternal and co-aquel. Jesus is God and God is Jesus" That is the Christian dogma, to which the majority of those who call themselves Christians subscribe. Jesus (as) said in the Gospel (Injiil): "For the Father is greater than I" John: 14:28 - If Jesus and God were ONE and the SAME how come God is greater than Jesus? Were they not 3 in One and 1 in 3? - Would it not have been more appropriate to speak of this way: God and Jesus were greater? So dear Runta, I have nothing else to say than just to pray for ya! May Allah show you the right path!
|
| | Tuesday, September 12, 2000 - 05:16 am Ansaari... God simply expresses Himself in different forms and roles. I can be a child, a parent and a sibling at the same time and be the same person. The role I would execute as a parent is greater than the role that I execute as a child, yet I'm the same person. The role may be greater or lesser, but since I'm the same person I can't be greater or lesser than myself. Jesus is talking about roles. Formerguest... the word Trinity is a really loaded word that I don't like to use a lot simple because many people (such as yourself) have great misunderstanding as to what it means. Some Muslims believe that the trinity is Mary, Jesus, and God and that Christians believe Mary and God had sex. So I don't like to use that word because people automatically think of the craziest things that have nothing to do with anything. Do you believe that God CAN'T do express Himself in whatever form He desires? If not then He isn't all powerful. Why couldn't He? He's allpowerful or not? Because you can't understand why He would do something, does that mean that God can't or wouldn't do it because YOU can't understand? Are you the judge of God?
|
| | Tuesday, September 12, 2000 - 05:41 am "I can be a child, a parent and a sibling at the same time and be the same person." but which one of you eats food; which one of you runs to the bathroom to take a shiiiit when the stomach hurts; which one of you sleeps or awake all the time? what kind of god sleeps; does need to eat food; runts the restrooms in order to releif himself? the god of christians, right, runta?
|
| | Tuesday, September 12, 2000 - 06:11 am "Do you believe that God CAN'T do express Himself in whatever form He desires?" it is the beneath of God's nature that sleep over takes Him; it is the beneath of Him to have the need to eat food; it is the beneath of Him to have the argues to take a shiiit. "Because you can't understand why He would do something, does that mean that God can't or wouldn't do it because YOU can't understand? anyone who thinks God needs to do things that are beneath His nature, can not understand God. and anyone who worships another person who is beneath the nature of God, does not understand God. when you say that jesus is your god and savoir, you understand a false god. jesus understood His Maker. jesus, himself, needed to worship His maker. if jesus is your god, why would your god worship another God? you say you can be a child, a parent and a sibling at the same time and be the same person. then, the child, the parent and the sibling in you, who worships whom?
|
| | Tuesday, September 12, 2000 - 08:20 am Allah, the Exalted, informed us in Al-Qur'an, in an aya which means: << For those blasphemers who do not believe in Allah and His Messenger, We have prepared Hellfire. >> It is obligatory to believe in Allah and to know what is permissible to attribute to Him, what is necessary to be of His attributes, and what is impossible to be of His attributes. Allah exists without a beginning, without an ending, and without a place. He created everything that exists, and He does not need any of His creation, and He does not ressemble any of His creation. Allah is cleared from the attributes of the Creation. Also, it is obligatory to believe in the Messenger and to know what is befitting for him, what is permissible for him and the other Prophets, what is necessary to be of their attributes, and what is impossible to be among their attributes. Among what one must know, believe in, and utter immediately if one was a blasphemer*, or else in the prayer, is The Testification of Faith (Two Shahadahs) which is: "Ashhadu alla Ilaha Illallah, Wa Ashhadu Anna Muhammadar-Rasulullah" (sallallahu ^alayhi wa sallam) And it means: "I know, I believe and I declare that no one is God except Allah and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah." *The one who does not believe in Allah and His Messenger is a blasphemer and shall enter Hellfire eternally. The First Profession (ash-Shahadah), i.e., "No one is God except Allah" means nothing deserves to be worshipped except Allah. "Allah" is the name of the Creator in Arabic which means "The One Who has the Godhood which is the power to create the entities." The second Profession, i.e., "Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah" includes believing Muhammad was the last of the Prophets, he was truthful in all he told about and conveyed from Allah (as were all the prophets before him), and the Creator gave us Prophets and Messengers to guide us to worship Him correctly. A Muslim must believe in all the Prophets and Messengers. The Two Professions are the essentials of belief in Islam; they are the foundation of the faith. The analogy of constructing a building is useful in explaining the importance of this basic belief. There will be no building without a concrete foundation. Likewise, there will be no benefit and fruitful results in the Hereafter without having the correct belief first.
|
| | Tuesday, September 12, 2000 - 12:10 pm Well asad... Remember God is omnipresent but can powerfully manifest His Sprirt anywhere He wishes...so God's spirit could reside in the body of Jesus and be on the throne in heaven at the same time. So God doesn't sleep...when Jesus slept it wasn't like the world shut down. God is omnipresent. Jesus came to be an example for us as well. What sort of example would He be if He never prayed to God? I have a qustion for you... You know that the Jews had a temple and they sacrificed animals in that temple. Even before they had a temple they were commanded to sacrifice animals...many, many animals and types. Why? All the prophets before Muhammed believed in the sacrifices. For some reason under Muhammed, sacrifices lost their importantce. Why?
|
| | Tuesday, September 12, 2000 - 06:47 pm "Remember God is omnipresent but can powerfully manifest His Sprirt anywhere He wishes...so God's spirit could reside in the body of Jesus and be on the throne in heaven at the same time." Well, God is powerful and can do anything, but jesus was not powerful and could not do anything he wanted. if God was in jesus's body, jesus would not have cried to God for help while looking up to the skies when he was powerless and could not help himself(when the people were trying to kill him in the cross). if God was in the body of jesus, why was jesus crying and saying to God, according to the bible, "why have you forsaken me"? according to the bible, jesus died for three days and three nights. during this time, was God still in the body of jesus, runta? "Jesus came to be an example for us as well. What sort of example would He be if He never prayed to God?" what about the people before jesus? are you saying they had no example? or are you saying they also had their own three gods in one---who would be also like jesus(another god)? "You know that the Jews had a temple and they sacrificed animals in that temple. Even before they had a temple they were commanded to sacrifice animals...many, many animals and types." i know that. i know that muslims do scarifies animals too. "All the prophets before Muhammed believed in the sacrifices. are you saying that all the prophets before muhammad, like jesus, were sacrifiesed too? "For some reason under Muhammed, sacrifices lost their importantce." that is because muhammad set the record straight. he taught that jesus and all the prophets prayed to one God. he taught that (as the bible also teaches which you chrsitians ignore) that jesus was only sent to the children of israel, as a prophet. now, let's take a look at the other ill-befitting qualities that the christians label onto God(int their blasphemous teachings). (a) A hissing God (?) ISAIAH 5:26, 7: 18, ZECHARIA 10:8 (b) A "roaring" God (?) ISAIAH 42:13, JEREMIAH 25:30 (c) A "barber" God (?) ISAIAH 7:20 (d) A "penitent" God (?) JEREMIAH 15:6, GENESIS 6:6 (e) A God "riding" a cherub (?) 2 SAMUEL 22:11 (f) A God murders 50,070 for looking into a box (?) SAMUEL 6:19 GOD: His contradictory attributes— (a) "No man hath seen God at any time John 1: 18 (b) " (God) whom no man hath seen, nor can see .,."I TIMOTHY 6:16 (c) "And he (God) said, Thou canst see my face: for there shall no man see me, and 1ive. EXODUS 33:20 Contradicted by: (a) "And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend Exodus 33:11 (b) 'And they (Moses, Aaron and seventy others) saw the God of Israel . ." EXODUS 24:10 (c) "And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved GENESIS 32:30 And as a special favour God shows his back parts to Moses "And I (God) will take away my hand and thou shalt see my back parts . . . " EXODUS 33:23 17. GOD: Is not a fabricator of confusion— (a) "For God is NOT the author of confusion . ." I CORINTHIANS 14:33 Contradicted by". (b) " . . I make peace, and CREATE EVIL . . ." ISAIAH 45:7 (by But the spirit of the Lord departed from Saul and AN EVIL SPIRIT from the Lord troubled him. I SAMUEL 16:14 (c) "And for this cause God shall send them a strong delusion, that they should BELIEVE A LIE." 2 THESSALONIANS 2:1 1 18. GOD: Further contradictory qualities— (a) GOD AS AN OMNIPOTENT BEING: "And Jesus saith . for with God ALL THINGS are possible MARK 10:27, also MATTHEW 19:26 Contradicted by. "And the Lord was with Judah, and he drove out the inhabitants of the mountain, but COULD NOT drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had Chariots OF IRON." JUDGES 1:19 (b) GOD'S ANGER ABIDETH FOR A MINUTE: For his (God's) anger endureth but a MOMENT." PSALMS 30:5 . Contradicted by: " And the lord's anger was kindled against Israel and he made them (the Jews) wander in the wilderness FORTY YEARS..." NUMBERS 32:13 (c) GOD DOES NOT SHOW ANY SELF-REPROACH: "God is not a mar, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent . . ." NUMBERS 23:19 Contradicted by. " . . and the Lord REPENTED that he made Saul king over Israel " SAMUEL 15:35 Also: ; And the Lord REPENTED of the evil which he thought to do unto his people (Israel)" EXODUS 32:14 (d) GOD'S MERCY ENDURETH FOR EVER "For the Lord is good; and his mercy is Everlasting." PSALMS 100:5 Contradicted by: "I (God) remember that which Amalek did to Israel (four hundred years before) . . . Now go and smite Amalek and UTTERLY DESTROY ALL they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling ox and sheep, camel and ass (the donkey) I SAMUEL 15:3 (e) GOD DWELLS IN LIGHT: " . . (God) dwelling in the LIGHT which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see . . " 1 TIMOTHY 6:16 Contradicted by: "Then spake Solomon, the Lord said that he would dwell in the Thick Darkness." 1 Kings 8:12 (f) GOD DOES NOT ENTICE MAN: 'Let no man say he is tempted, I am TEMPTED of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, NEITHER TEMPTETH he any man" JAMES 1:13 Contradicted by: 'And it came to pass after these things, that God DID TEMPT Abraham . " GENESIS 22:1
|
| | Wednesday, September 13, 2000 - 05:01 am Look...I don't want to read your books. Quote from the Qu'ran or Bible, but leave the thoughts of other authors who have compiled those verses (not you) out of it. Stay with what I said. (Trust me my brothers have done their fair share in giving me books to read and talking to me.) It didn't work... and they were here with me. "For some reason under Muhammed, sacrifices lost their importantce." that is because muhammad set the record straight. he taught that jesus and all the prophets prayed to one God. he taught that (as the bible also teaches which you chrsitians ignore) that jesus was only sent to the children of israel, as a prophet. I think your answer needs some clarifying... how does belief in one God (which the Jews believed in when they weren't rebelling) have anything to do with whether or not animal sacrifices should go on. Why the abrupt stop? Why did Muhammed cease to give importance to it?
|
| | Wednesday, September 13, 2000 - 06:37 am "Look...I don't want to read your books. Quote from the Qu'ran or Bible, but leave the thoughts of other authors who have compiled those verses (not you) out of it." runta, i told you i do not care if you wan tot read it or not. i know it hurts to see the truth and the blasphemous teachings which you subuscribe. Allah is free from what you people attribute. what i quoted for you were the bible verses. you quoted bible verses before. i do not think you wrote the book of the bible. did you compiled the bible verses you quoted on here? "how does belief in one God (which the Jews believed in when they weren't rebelling) have anything to do with whether or not animal sacrifices should go on" i told you that muhammad's teaching set the record straight. i told you that both in muhammad's teachings in the Qur'an and jesus's teachings in the Bible, which you chrsitians ignore, say that jesus was only sent to the children of israel, as a prophet. i told you that muslims do scarifiece animals too. you are saying since the jews used to sacrifice animals and used to shed animal blood in order that their sins may be forgiven, the christians received the blood of jesus after he was suppostely sacrified and killed. but that is false. in muhammdd teachings, sacrifices never lost their importantce. muslims sacrificed their money, their animals and their time, even their nafs (their body in jihad). muhammad's teachings set the record stright. he taught that children are born without sin. jesus never died; jesus can not forgive sin; he and all other prophet needed forgiveness and mercy from their creator, Allah. both jesus and muhammad encouraged their followers to follow the commandement and beleive in One God.
|
| | Wednesday, September 13, 2000 - 09:59 am ASAD, May be They bite. That is why RUNTA doesn't wanna read quotes from his own books. Another quotes that bite RUNTA: When jesus was told JEWS want to kill him and crucify him, he prayed hard to ALLAH to save him from their plots: <Matthew 26:38 "Then saith he unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death: tarry ye here, and watch with me.">(See how jesus is afraid here, tell us RUNTA, this was the human side of JESUS when it is his soul that feels this way). <Matthew 26:39 "And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.">. Allah tells us in the QURAN JESUS was saved from the JEWISH plotters who wanted to kill him and was saved by ALLAH; <4.157. That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah.";- But they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:- > 158. Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise;->
|
| | Wednesday, September 13, 2000 - 10:29 am I know that Muslims do sacrifice animals... but what is the significance of that sacrificed animal? Time helps people. Money helps people. Food helps you deny your body and focus more on God. Nafs help spread the message. Why animals? Remember my brothers are very religious and gave me things to read. AND I READ THEM! I even wrote a whole rebuttal to one of them. It didn't change my faith in the slightest. In fact somethings made apparent the gross ignorance of someone acting like a scholar in something that he has no background in... like someone who has studied about being a cop, has cop friends and played a cop in a few movies trying to tell a real cop what being a cop is about. It's ridiculous. You can study it all you want, but unless you're a cop there are somethings you just know from experience. That's how I see those writings...just a bunch of people saying all this stuff that they are writing looking from the outside. It's just a pet peeve of mine... how all these Muslims act like they know more about Christianity than Christians... just because they read a few books. Insane.
|
| | Wednesday, September 13, 2000 - 10:38 am "May be They bite. That is why RUNTA doesn't wanna read quotes from his own books." it is a strange thing that runta does not want us to quote for him the bible verses, but he wants to quote the selected bible verses for us.! the bible verses he does not want to see are compiled a book called COMBAT KIT AGAINST BIBLE THUMPERS by Deedat. http://home2.swipnet.se/~w-20479/Combat.htm http://home.swipnet.se/~w-20479/
|
| | Wednesday, September 13, 2000 - 10:51 am "I know that Muslims do sacrifice animals... but what is the significance of that sacrificed animal?" first, animal sacrifice is an order. second, the significance is for atonement(forgiveness of the sins people commit). "Why animals?" the blood of the animal does not reach to God or the blood is not what God needs; the sacrifice is what is significance---that people sacrificing what is dear to them (animals) for their atonement. as i told you, you are saying that since the jews used to sacrifice animals and used to shed animal blood in order that their sins may be forgiven, the christians received the blood of jesus after he was supposedly sacrificed and killed. but that is false. jesus never said he will be sacrificed or be an atonement. he never said he will do for people's sin. children are not born with sins. jesus said the only way to get salvation and to the heaven is to follow the commandments and spend and sacrifice what you love(animals, many, time, etc)
|
| | Wednesday, September 13, 2000 - 11:01 am "One of the fundamental beliefs of Christianity is that Jesus had died and allowed for the shedding of his blood for the sake of granting forgiveness to people. In other words Jesus had died on the cross as a sacrifice for our sins. Let us investigate this topic from the Bible, and find out whether Jesus was sent to be crucified or that he was crucified: 1. Willingness of Jesus Christ to Die for Our Sins: Peter and the two sons of Zebedee were with Jesus Christ before the elders of the people and the chief priests came to take him to crucify him. Jesus at this point talked to Peter and the two sons of Zebedee as in Matthew 26:38 "Then saith he unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death: tarry ye here, and watch with me." Then Jesus went a little further way from them and prayed to God as in Matthew 26:39 "And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt." It is very clear from the above verse in Matthew 26:39 that Jesus had no intention of dying. In this verse it is shown that Jesus was praying strongly (Matthew mentions that Jesus repeated these prayer three time) to have this death removed from him. Had Jesus Christ been sent to be crucified he would not have hesitated to be killed at all. When I relate this to my Christian brothers, they tell me that this hesitation comes from the flesh side of him (in other words he was tempted), and that his soul which is godly does not have this hesitation at all. When we look at Matthew 26:38 we see that Jesus is contradicting this idea by saying, "My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death." (Matthew 26:38). He himself says that it really his soul that is hesitating and not his body. These are Jesus' own words. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. God Answered the prayers of Jesus Christ: After Jesus made the above mentioned prayer he was answered by God according to Hebrews 5:7 "Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared." These words clearly show that when Jesus was praying strongly to God, God would grant him his request. The word "heard in that he feared" (Hebrews 5:7) mean that God granted him what he requested. So the above verse shows that when Jesus asked of God to "let this cup pass from" (Matthew 26:39) him, God respond to his prayer and saved him from death or crucifixion. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. The Post Crucifixion Prophesied Events never happened: When the people were asking Jesus Christ if he was going to show them a sign, He replied by saying that the only sign that they should expect is the sign of Jonas. Jesus also made sure to specify what exactly this sign was. The details are shown in the following verses: Matthew 12:38 Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee. Matthew 12:39 But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: Matthew 12:40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. Jesus here emphasized what will happen to him by specifically saying that he will be like Jonas in terms of the number of days and nights he will be in the heart of the earth, " For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." (Matthew 12:40). Now let us see if this prophecy came to pass. Jesus was crucified on Friday, this is certainly known among all Christians, and that is the reason for calling that Friday by "Good Friday". Jesus was buried on Friday night. Now let us start counting: Friday night Jesus was buried. This is night number 1. Saturday day Jesus was still in the grave. This is day number 1. Saturday night Jesus was still in the grave. This is night number 2. Mary Magdalene, very early in the morning before sun rise and after the Sabbath (Saturday), went to the see Jesus, and he was not there. The following verses relate this event: Mark 16:1 And when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him. Mark 16:2 And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun. Mark 16:3 And they said among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre? Mark 16:4 And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great. Mark 16:5 And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted. Mark 16:6 And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him. The number of days and nights that Jesus had spent in the heart of the earth is 1 day and 2 nights. This clearly challenges what Jesus had prophesied. When I tell this to my Christian brothers, some of them responded by saying that what Jesus wanted to really say was that he will be gone for a while, and not that he will be in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights. This is clearly not the case. Had Jesus meant that, he would have said it, but it is clear that he wanted the people to know that this was a sign (miracle) and that it will be like Joans' sign, and that he will be in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights. These were his own words. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Why Would Jesus Have to Die on the Cross? According to the Christian doctrine, Jesus died on the cross as a sacrifice for our sins. The idea here is that every human is born with sins, or that all humans will sin, and therefore it was necessary that someone as pure as Jesus would be the crucified to nullify these sins. The question is; why does anyone have to die for our sins when God, the All-Merciful, could as easily give us forgiveness if we ask for it? Isn't God the one who makes the rules? Why does He have to make someone suffer for our sins or for someone else's sins? Isn't that unjust of Him? According to the Bible the way to redemption could be obtained without the need for sacrifice. The Bible says: Ezekiel 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. Ezekiel 18:21 But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die. Clearly the soul that sins shall die. Clearly that no one shall bear the iniquity (sins) of others. So Jesus cannot bear the sins of others either. If one is righteous then it shall be upon him, and if one commits a sin then it shall be upon him, and not on Jesus. Finally, the way to repentance and forgiveness is by turning from all sins, doing what is right, and keeping the commandments. Also we see the same message given by Solomon. He says in the book of Ecclesiastes 12:13 "Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man." This is the whole message, and this is the conclusion of messages. It is that one should fear God, and keep the commandments, and nothing else. Again in 2 Chronicles 7:14 "If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land." This clearly states that to seek forgiveness from God we have to humble ourselves, pray and seek God, and turn away from wickedness. Finally the Bible says in Samuel 15:22 "And Samuel said, Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams." This clearly states that obeying God is better that sacrifice whether this sacrifice is of objects, animals, or humans, or any other type. What God likes is for us to heed and obey Him, and if that is what God likes then it is not of Him to come later and change his mind, and change his ways. God says in the Holy Quran, "Verily God is All-Knowing, All-Wise" (Ch 9: Vr 28). Now that we have seen this, Christians say that Jesus has changed some of these laws. Let's look at what Jesus says. In Matthew 5:17 "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." Jesus clearly states that he was not sent to abolish the law, the law of which had already existed. So what is mentioned above cannot be discounted. Then Jesus continues to say, in Matthew 5:18 and 19 "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." Jesus here states that not even as much as a dot (tittle) shall not pass from the law. Every thing is kept the way it was. That is why the previous laws cannot be removed or discarded, and those who willfully change these laws "he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven." http://home2.swipnet.se/~w-20479/Crucify.htm
|
| | Wednesday, September 13, 2000 - 11:13 am "Is Jesus the Same as God? In John 10:30 we find that Jesus says "I and my Father are one." This verse, according to Christians, shows clearly that God and Jesus Christ are the same. Also we read in John 20:17, "Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God." Here Jesus clearly states that there is distinction between him and God. In other words that Jesus himself has a God. Also Matthew 27:46 "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" Here Jesus Christ cries in loud voice calling his God. These are two different and opposite ways Jesus relates himself to God. The first one that he and God are one, and the second is that he refers to a higher authority than him which is his God. Now assuming that both are correct statements then we have a contradiction. If, for example, Jesus Christ was God himself as in John 10:30 then it would be more appropriate for him to say "...and to myself, and your God." in John 20:17, or "Myself, Myself, why hast thou forsaken me?" in Matthew 27:46. If, on the other hand, one of them is wrong and the other is correct then we have to discard the one that we believe to be incorrect. Since God does not make mistakes then we no longer believe that the Bible is the word of God (because we believe that there is a contradiction God's words). A third possibility is that we have to look at how we can interpret the words of Jesus in those verses. As far as John 20:17 and Matthew 27:46 it is very clear that Jesus has a God whom he prays to and Whom has a higher authority than him. We can back this up with other verses from the bible that say, "I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me." (John 5:30). Also Jesus says, "...for my Father is greater than I" (John 14:28). If Jesus and God were the same then he would not have said what he has said in the above verses. Now, the only verse that can be interpreted is John 10:30. It is the only one that does not render itself clear. The only way John 10:30 could be interpreted such that it does not contradict all the other verses is by saying that Jesus meant that he and God have something in common. To find out what the common grounds are, we have to look at the context which this verse is in: John 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: John 10:28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. John 10:29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. John 10:30 I and my Father are one. As can be seen from John 10:28 and John 10:29 that Jesus is telling the Jews that he and God share something in common, and that is; that no one can pluck the faithful from either of their hands. This is what is common between Jesus and God in this case, and not that Jesus is himself is God, or that they are exactly the same. Let us go on to see what Jesus says in John 10: John 10:31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. John 10:32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I showed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? John 10:33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. John 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? John 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; John 10:36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? John 10:37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. John 10:38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him. John 10:39 Therefore they sought again to take him: but he escaped out of their hand, John 10:40 And went away again beyond Jordan In John 10:31 we see that the Jews misunderstood what Jesus had meant by "I and my Father are one." (John 10:30). And in John 10:33 they accuse him of blasphemy. Now, had Jesus been God, or had he and God been one in a literal sense then he should not hesitate to clarify the matter at this point. Jesus at this point says, "Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?" What he is trying to say that if you call "I and my Father are one" blasphemy then you should call what is written in your law "Ye are gods" blasphemy also. The reasoning here is that "Ye are gods" does not mean that you, the Jews, are Gods, it is rather an expression. It just means that you are godly people. The same with "I and my Father are one." It does not mean that I am God or that we are the same literally. It is just an expression. The same goes for calling himself "the Son of God." This statement should not be taken literally either. The Holy Quran says, "...Nothing whatsoever (is there) like the like of Him, and He (alone) is All-Hearing and All-Seeing" (Ch 42: Vr 11). Nothing at all is like God, not Moses, not Jesus, not Muhammad, and certainly nothing of His creation. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What About All These Verses? After I discuss the above with my Christian brothers they ask me, "but what about the other verses that say Jesus is God?" and they show me some of them. Some of these verses are: 1. John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. My Christians brothers here associate this verse to the words that God had said to Moses in the Old Testament when He said to him in Exodus 3:14 "And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you." What Jesus said is similar to what God had said to Moses therefor they are the same. (Of course Jesus does not say explicitly that he is God here, and I could show that what he meant was not that he was God, but I will leave this for another discussion.) 2. Matthew 18:20 "For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." Jesus here gives himself divine quality, being present as God. 3. Revelation 1:17 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last: Revelation 1:18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death. Jesus here says that he is the first and the last. This is clearly a divine quality. Also he says that he has the keys of hell and of death. This is also a divine quality. I really don't know how many more verse like these are available, but let us assume that there are more than that. I reply to them that what you showed me right now only backs me up even further, and before I explain how, I relate the following verse to them: 1. Mark 13:32 But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father. It is shown here that God and only God and not the son (Jesus) has the knowledge of the time of the Judgment day. Jesus here denies his divinity (since God knows everything). 2. John 5:19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. Here Jesus also says that his powers do not belong to him, and he alone, without the help of God, can do nothing. Again Jesus is denying divine qualities. 3. John 5:30 I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me. Here Jesus also denies any divine qualities. He (Jesus), without God can do nothing. 4. John 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. Also, Matthew 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? Here Jesus, in the first verse, says that he has a God, and in the second he cries out for his God. Surely God does not have a god. Jesus clearly shows that he has a God and that he is not divine. 5. John 5:37 And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape. Jesus clearly states that no one had even heard God's voice, and not even seen his shape. This is Jesus talking, and his voice heard and his shape is seen to those he is with at the moment, so it must be not him that he is referring to as the Divine character, and that means that they (Jesus and God) are not the same. 6. John 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I. Here Jesus also says that God is greater that he is. Again he is disclaiming divinity. 7. Matthew 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. When a man referred to Jesus by good master, Jesus replied to him by saying that there is only one good which is God. If Jesus cannot even claim that he is good, then why should he claim that he is God? These are all verses from the bible some show Christ to be God or having some qualities of God and others that show the he is not God and that he does not have divine qualities. Which are we to believe? Aren't these contradictions? I say to all my Christian brothers that brought me the verse that claim Christ's divinity, "now you have to explain to me how such a thing could be. What does all this mean?" http://home2.swipnet.se/~w-20479/Samegod.htm
|
| | Wednesday, September 13, 2000 - 12:57 pm ASAD wrote:"the blood of the animal does not reach to God or the blood is not what God needs; the sacrifice is what is significance---that people sacrificing what is dear to them (animals) for their atonement. AL-QURAN. <22:37. It is not their meat nor their blood, that reaches Allah, it is your piety that reaches Him: He has thus made them subject to you, that ye may glorify Allah for His Guidance to you and proclaim the good news to all who do good. >
|
| | Wednesday, September 13, 2000 - 01:07 pm Ok... Asad I could find plenty of books to quote to you from. Every verse I use is one that I PERSONALLY have found and picked. I don't take the easy way out and let someone quote for me. If you want to use verses that is find, but why are you so afraid to read the Bible FOR YOURSELF and quote to me using verses you have found. Why do you need someone all the time? I've heard of Muslims telling other Muslims not to read the Bible because they will become a Christian. You know... if we talked about the Qu'ran I wouldn't just take quotes from someone's book. I would look in the Qu'ran myself. Can you defeat the Bible on your own...why don't you read the Bible without any Islamic scholar on your own? John is a good book. If you read the entire book of John in the Bible...the fact that Jesus condoned His deity would be clear to you. Why not read it for yourself? Again...if you read the Torah it makes it clear that the shedding of blood was for the sins of the people not just because animals were precious. I mean why not gold then or jewels? In fact God said that without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness for sin.
|
| | Wednesday, September 13, 2000 - 01:40 pm "Every verse I use is one that I PERSONALLY have found and picked. I don't take the easy way out and let someone quote for me." there is no difference if you copied the verses from the bible and if i copied the verses from another book. they are both books written by men. " If you want to use verses that is find, but why are you so afraid to read the Bible FOR YOURSELF and quote to me using verses you have found." i have a bible in my possession. i'm not afraid of reading. you are ashamed of reading the verses i quoted for you. "Why do you need someone all the time?" i do not need someone to pay my sins. you are the one who needs a human being to be your god. "I've heard of Muslims telling other Muslims not to read the Bible because they will become a Christian." i know a christian person you hates to read the bible verses quoted on here and that is runta. he or she is ashamed of reading the contradictions and blasphemous saying in the bible. ". You know... if we talked about the Qu'ran I wouldn't just take quotes from someone's book. I would look in the Qu'ran myself." it does not matter. if you quote the Qura'n from another book or not. i'm not ashamed of reading the Qura'n. unlike the bible, the Qur'an has no contradictions and blasphemous sayings. "Can you defeat the Bible on your own...why don't you read the Bible without any Islamic scholar on your own?" the bible defeats itself. you, yourself, is afraid of reading about the verses that is in question. "John is a good book. If you read the entire book of John in the Bible...the fact that Jesus condoned His deity would be clear to you. Why not read it for yourself?" why don't you quote it for us. if you quote for us the verses you are talking about, i'm going to quote for you other verses that contradict them. then, we will see which is one good. "Again...if you read the Torah it makes it clear that the shedding of blood was for the sins of the people not just because animals were precious." i did not say that animals were precious. animals were what the old people valued the most. almost everyone had animals that they raised them. "I mean why not gold then or jewels?" not everyone had gold. "In fact God said that without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness for sin." that is right. and there is no such thing as the blood of jesus with forgiveness . this is a false belief that jesus didn't teach. jesus's teachings were follow the commandments. Allah is the only one who forgivess sin; jesus has nothing to do with forgivness; he didn't die for our sins; children are born without sins.
|
| | Wednesday, September 13, 2000 - 01:50 pm "In fact God said that without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness for sin." hold on. God forgives without the shedding of blood. to say that God will not and does not forgive without there being blood shed is crazy and false. adam and hawa's sins were forgiven without there being blood shed. children of adam are born without sins.
|
| | Wednesday, September 13, 2000 - 10:56 pm Asad Chilren of Adam are born without sin. This is interesting (and I agree with it). In MOST (not all) Christian doctrines we are born sinners hence the symbolic babtism to wash away our sins. In the Babtist Church where I grew up, most children get babtized around the age of 12. I refused. I continued to refuse because I didn't accept that Jesus was the son of God. I went to Church and would argue with the minister til he was blue in the face. Maybe I was born to be a cynic. Mom still pesters me abobut getting babtised and I'm 38 years old.
|
| | Thursday, September 14, 2000 - 02:20 am The truth of the matter is, If RUNTA has a sound thinking without relying on someone else and could read his bible in complete, He would have seen in many verses where it is clear, people are accountable for what they do, JESUS won't help: <Matthew 12:36; "But I say unto you that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the Day of Judgment. For by the words thou shalt be justified, by the words thou shalt be condemned"?> Superstition is ADDICTION. And if someone if afflicted with it, only ALLAH can help him see the light. There is GREEK paganism full in the bible. And the Man to blame for all this is non other than the MAN who ordered christians to dismiss so much of JESUS'S teachings. The best way a christian can see the light is read his own bible with intellect.
|
| | Thursday, September 14, 2000 - 03:06 am Formerguest There you ago again citing the Bible like you were citing the Qur'an. What did I tell you before. The bible is not, I say again, is not, a Christian version of the Qur'an. You can't look up a verse and say "this is what Christianity says." It doesn't work that way. In fact, in some sects of Christianity the interpetation is you must believe that Jesus is the son of God to be saved and once you do you will be saved. Others believe you will be judged by actions. Islam is the same way. The qur'an says that Allah is Merciful and forgiving and if you ask forgiveness for a transgression Allah can forgive. Your last line, read the Bible with intellect, is critical. The Bible is not devine and you can not read one verse and draw a conclusion from it.
|
| | Thursday, September 14, 2000 - 04:56 am (Keep reading I'll give some verses to answer). The thing is anyone can pick a verse and not show the surrounding verses. Have you ever had a Christian attack something in the Qu'ran and that person is convinced that they have found something against the Qu'ran, but because that person doesn't have a background knowledge or not a lot of doctrinal experience... they really don't have a point. I've actually read some of your mass book postings. Sometimes the author actually admitted that Jesus was giving Himself divine qualities, but then didn't explain why... instead he just went to some more verses where it looks like Jesus isn't giving himself divine qualities. That's so easy to explain. Jesus was in a human body... in his human body, he prayed called the Father His God, said that the Father was greater than He [that is the Father's role was greater than His] (He was in a human body at the time) He wasn't in His glorified state. In the book of Revelation He calls Himself the "Almighty" BTW... Jesus says in several places to the people "Take up your CROSS and follow ME" __________________________________________________ I'll answer by giving these verses to some of your book. John 11 23Jesus said to her, "Your brother will rise again." 24Martha said to Him, "I know that he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day." 25Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. 26And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?" 27She said to Him, "Yes, Lord, I believe that You are the Christ, the Son of God, who is to come into the world." OK HOW OBVIOUS DO YOU WANT IT? John 1 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was WITH, and the Word WAS God. 2He was in the beginning with God. 3All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. 14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,full of grace and truth. ***Jesus is the WORD OF GOD. As even Muslims claim. He was WITH God and WAS God at the same time.*** LASTLY... (although I could give MANY MORE) Matthew 16 21 From that time Jesus began to show to His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised the third day. 22Then Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying, "Far be it from You, Lord; this shall not happen to You!" 23But He turned and said to Peter, "Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offense to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men." Take Up the Cross and Follow Him * 24 Then Jesus said to His disciples, "If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me. 25For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it. 26For what profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul? 27For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works.
|
| | Thursday, September 14, 2000 - 05:20 am formerguest and asad, Ok I guess God just was wasting His breath asking the the children of Israel to sacrifice animals and then God all of a suddenly decided... after hundreds of years to pretty much get rid of it. There is no reason. If God is just going to up and change His mind every few hundred years for no real reason... where's the trust? You guys haven't given me a real reason whatsoever. I guess it just happened... asad what does old people finding animals important have anything to do with hundreds of years the sacrifices were done by old AND young? WHY DID GOD REQUIRE BLOOD SACRIFICES FOR ATONEMENT and then CHANGE HIS MIND? WHAT IS THE REASON???? Why did God stop all of a sudden? NEWS FLASH--------------> I don't believe that children are automatically born with sin and have to be baptized as children so if they die they will go to heaven. That is predominantly a non-Protestant belief. Many Christians believe that we sin when we know that we are sinning. PLUS everyone is born with a natural INCLINATION to sin. It's natural for people even as children to tell little lies, be selfish, and say mean things. Christians call that a SIN NATURE. In other words we like to sin...even though we know its bad. Saying that sarcastic remark felt good even though it hurt the other person...looking at those indecent pictures of ladies makes a man feel good even though it degrades him and the ladies. I just had to correct you there. I wish that the Qu'ran could be dissected like the Bible...The West is free and you can dissect what you want. The Muslims are highly protective of their manuscripts and aren't excited about outside sources examining them. The Qu'ran hasn't endured near the abuse that people have given to the Bible. Muslims wouldn't tolerate it. My dad had no problem putting down the Bible, but if I dared put down the Qu'ran... that was too intolerable... Many Muslims have the attitude that it's ok to degrade the Bible, but will be deeply offended if someone degrades the Qu'ran. Many more Muslims try to be "experts" on the Bible than Christians try to be "experts" on the Qu'ran. Yet, the Bible is still the international best seller of all time no matter what the Muslims say. After all the abuse that's a miracle in itself... the Qu'ran doesn't come close. God is protecting His true Word.
|
| | Thursday, September 14, 2000 - 05:57 am Runta While you are correct that being born with sin is predominantly a non-protenstant belief, Baptism is generally considered a declaration of faith in the protestant church. Neccesary in most protestant Churches to take communion and identify yourself as Christian. Which denomination are you??
|
| | Thursday, September 14, 2000 - 06:34 am Baptism is done as an outward sign of an inward work. It's to be done AFTER someone has excepted Jesus as Lord and on their own free will (it's pointless to force your kids). I am non-denominational although I respect any denomination that believes in the basic foundational truths of the Christian faith.
|
| | Thursday, September 14, 2000 - 07:18 am "Jesus was in a human body... in his human body, he prayed called the Father His God, said that the Father was greater than He [that is the Father's role was greater than His] (He was in a human body at the time) He wasn't in His glorified state." runta, is jesus now in the glorified state? what is his role right now? is he no longer less than God? maybe you need to read these questions and answers since you refused to read them before: Question No.1 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Jesus said: "I and the Father are one" (Jn.10:30), therefore, is not Jesus the same, or, "co-equal" in status with his Father? Answer No.1 ^^^^^^^^^^^ In Greek, `heis' means `one' numerically (masc.) `hen' means `one' in unity or essence (neut.) Here the word used by John is `hen' and not `heis'. The marginal notes in New American Standard Bible (NASB) reads; one - (Lit.neuter) a unity, or, one essence. If one wishes to argue that the word `hen' supports their claim for Jesus being "co-equal" in status with his Father, please invite his/her attention to the following verse: Jesus said: "And the glory which Thou hast given me, I have given to them (disciples); that they may be one, just as we are one." (John 17:22). If he/she was to consider/regard/believe the Father and Jesus Christ to be "one" meaning "co-equal" in status on the basis of John 10:30, then that person should also be prepared to consider/regard/believe "them" - the disciples of Jesus, to be "co-equal" in status with the Father and Jesus ("just as we are one") in John 17:22. I have yet to find a person that would be prepared to make the disciples (students) "co-equal" in status with the Father or Jesus. The unity and accord was of the authorized divine message that originated from the Father, received by Jesus and finally passed on to the disciples. Jesus admitted having accomplished the work which the Father had given him to do. (Jn.17:4) Hot Tip: (precise and pertinent) ^^^^^^^^ Jesus said: "I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I." (Jn.14:28). This verse unequivocally refutes the claim by any one for Jesus being "co-equal" in status with his Father. ********************************************************************* -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Question No.2 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Jesus said: "I am the way, ...no one comes to the Father, but through me." (Jn.14:6), therefore, is not the Salvation through Jesus, ALONE? Answer No.2 ^^^^^^^^^^^ Before Jesus spoke these words, he said; "In my Father's house are many mansions (dwelling places); if it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a mansion (a dwelling place) for you." (John 14:2). ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ The above explicit statement confirms that Jesus was going to prepare "a" mansion and not "all" the mansions in "my Father's house". Obviously, the prophets that came before him and the one to come after, were to prepare the other mansions for their respective followers. The prophet that came after Jesus had evidently shown the current "way" to a modern mansion in the kingdom of heaven. Besides; the verse clearly states; Jesus was the "WAY" to a mansion. It is a folly to believe that Jesus (or any prophet) was the "DESTINATION". Jesus said; "I am the door" to find the pasture. (Jn.10:9). A sheep that walks through the "door" will find the pasture. A sheep that circles around the "door" will never find the pasture. One who crosses over the "way" will reach the mansion. Anyone that stops on the "way" and believes the "way" to be the end of his/her journey, will be out in the open without any shelter and a roof. Hot Tip: (precise and pertinent) ^^^^^^^^ Jesus said; "Not every one that says to me; `Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of my Father, who is in heaven." (Mt.7:21). ****************************************************************** -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Question No.3 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Jesus said: "He who has seen me has seen the Father" (Jn.14:9), does this not prove that Jesus Christ and his Father were one and the same? Answer No.3 ^^^^^^^^^^^ One day to prove a point and settle an argument, Jesus picked up a child and said to his disciples; "Whoever receives this child in my name receives me; and whoever receives me receives Him who sent me;" (Luke 9:48). Jesus said; "He who believes in me does not believe in me, but in Him who sent me." (John 12:44) "He who hates me hates my Father also. ...but now they have both seen and hated me and my Father as well." (John 15:23-24) "And this is eternal life, that they may know Thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent." (John 17:3). The call of sincerity demands that if believing in the Truth is the honest intention then one could only pass an ethical judgement after reflecting upon all the relevant texts. John 17:3 (quoted above), if read with the following verse clears the air. Hot Tip: (precise and pertinent) ^^^^^^^^ Jesus said; "Truly, truly, I say to you, a slave is not greater than his master; neither one who is sent greater than the one who sent him." (John 13:16). During his ministry, Jesus repeatedly said he was sent by his Father. *********************************************************** -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Question No.4 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ The Bible; "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have eternal life." (John 3:16); should you not believe in Jesus to have eternal life? Answer No.4 ^^^^^^^^^^^ Of course, we believe in Jesus for what he was and we do not believe in what he was not. We Muslims believe Jesus was a Messiah; "Spirit from God"; "Word of God"; the righteous Prophet as well as Messenger of God and the son of Virgin Mary. But, we do not believe Jesus was "the begotten son of God." The truth of the matter is apostle John never ever wrote; Jesus was "the begotten" son of God. Please obtain a copy of the `Gideon Bible' from a Hotel or Motel near you. It is distributed free since 1899, all over the world, by The Gideon Society. In the beginning of this famous Bible, John 3:16 is translated in 26 popular world languages. You may be amazed to discover that in the English translation, the editors have used the traditionally accepted term "His only begotten son." Whereas, in several other languages the editors have used the term "His unique son" or "His one of a kind son." In 1992, when I discovered this textual variations, I wrote letters to various universities in North America requesting them to confirm the original Greek term used by John. Below is a copy of the response received from The George Washington University:- John 3:16 and John 1:18 each have the word `monogenes' in Greek. This word ordinarily means "of a single kind". As a result, "unique" is a good translation. The reason you sometimes find a translation that renders the word as "only begotten" has to do with an ancient heresy within the church. In response to the Arian claim that Jesus was made but not begotten, Jerome (4th century) translated the Greek term `monogenes' into Latin as `unigenitus' ("only begotten"). Paul B. Duff, 22 April, 1992. Professor Duff's response was based upon `Anchor Bible', volume 29, page 13-14. The Greek term for "begotten" is `gennao' as found in Mt.1:2, which John did not use. Hot Tip: (precise and pertinent) ^^^^^^^^ Jesus said to Mary; "...go to my brethren, and say to them, I ascend to my Father and your Father..." (John 20:17). This verse demonstrates that the usage of term `Father' was purely metaphorical. As for Jesus being a "unique son", he, unlike us, was created without a physical Father. *********************************************************** -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Question No.5 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Jesus said: "Truly, truly. I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." (John 3:3); I am a "born again" Christian, are you a "born again" Muslim? Answer No.5 ^^^^^^^^^^^ The truth of the matter is apostle John did not use the phrase "born again". The Greek text reveals, the phrase used by John is "born from above". The Greek word used by John is `anothen' (`ano' + `then'). `ano' means `above' and the suffix `then' denotes `from'. Hence, what Jesus said was "unless one is born from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God." And, that sounds logical. Since none of the living creature is "born from above", no one can see the kingdom heaven during his life time. The concept of being "born again" to see the kingdom of heaven is an innovation to instill the concept of Baptism. The same word `anothen' appears in the same Gospel and in the same chapter in verse 31. Here the editors have translated the word as "from above" and not "again". This further supports the logic of Jesus having said; "born from above". To enter the Kingdom of Heaven one has to keep the Commandments. God's distinguished Command known as the `Covenant of Circumcision' (physically, "in the flesh of your ####") was an everlasting Covenant (Compact,Treaty) between God and man. See Genesis 17:10-14. Can an everlasting Treaty be abrogated or revoked unilaterally? Did Jesus abrogate it? No. Jesus was circumcised in the flesh (Luke 2:21). We, Muslim males, are circumcised. Are the male Christians circumcised in the "flesh of their foreskins"? If not, please read the following verse:- Hot Tip: ^^^^^^^^ Jesus said; "Whoever then annuls (discards) one of the least of these commandments, and so teaches others, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." (Matt. 5:19). ************************************************************** -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Question No.6 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Jesus said; "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit," (Matthew 28:19); does this not prove that the `Doctrine of Trinity' and its present day formula was communicated and promulgated by Jesus Christ himself? Answer No.6 ^^^^^^^^^^^ With all due respect, we tend to disagree in view of the following compelling evidences:- 1. `Peake's Commentary on the Bible' published since 1919, is universally welcomed and considered to be the standard reference book for the students of the Bible. Commenting on the above verse it records; "This mission is described in the language of the church and most commentators doubt that the trinitarian formula was original at this point in Mt.'s Gospel, since the NT elsewhere does not know of such a formula and describes baptism as being performed in the name of the Lord Jesus (e.g. Ac. 2:38, 8:16, etc.)." 2. Tom Harpur, author of several bestsellers and a former professor of New Testament, writes in his book `For Christ's Sake'; "All but the most conservative of scholars agree that at least the latter part of this command was inserted later. The formula occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, and we know from the only evidence available (the rest of the New Testament) that the earliest Church did not baptise people using these words - baptism was "into" or "in" the name of Jesus alone." 3. The above command (authentic or otherwise) does not indicate that the three names mentioned in the formula are or were, "co- equal" in their status, as well as, were "co-eternal" in the time frame, to conform with the acknowledged `Doctrine of Trinity'. 4. If the Father and His Son were both in "existence" from the Day One, and no one was, a micro second before or after, and, no one was "greater or lesser" in status, than why is one called the Father and the other His begotten Son? 5. Did the act of "Begetting" take place? If YES, where was the "Begotten Son" before the act? If NO, why call him the "Begotten Son"? Hot Tip: ^^^^^^^^ "And Peter said to them, `Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins;...'" (Acts 2:38). It is most unlikely that apostle Peter would have disobeyed the specific command of Jesus Christ for baptising in the three names and baptized them in the name of Jesus Christ, alone. ****************************************************************** -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Question No.7 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Apostle John in his first Epistle, chapter 5 and verse 7 wrote: "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one."; is this not a fair testimony to acknowledge the `Doctrine of Trinity'? Answer No.7 ^^^^^^^^^^^ 1. The text quoted does appear in the Kings James Version but has been omitted by most of the editors of the recent versions e.g. Revised Standard Version, New American Standard Bible, New English Bible, Phillips Modern English Bible, because the quoted text does not appear in the older Greek manuscripts. 2. Renowned historian Edward Gibbon calls the addition a "Pious Fraud" in his famous history book `Decline and Fall of Roman Empire'. 3. Peakes commentary on the subject reads; "The famous interpolation after "three witnesses" is not printed even in RSVn, and rightly. It cites the heavenly testimony of the Father, the logos, and the Holy Spirit, but is never used in the early trinitarian controversies. No respectable Greek MS contains it. Appearing first in a late 4th-cent. Latin text, it entered the Vulgate and finally the NT of Erasmus." Hot Tip: ^^^^^^^^ Notwithstanding the above rejections, the verse that follows the quoted text reads in KJV; "And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood; and these three agree in one." (1John5:8). Are these three witnesses "co-equal"? Can blood be substituted with water? Can water be regarded as the same in any respect with the Spirit? Just as the spirit, the blood and the water are three separate entities, so are the first three witnesses, namely; the Father, the Son (Word, Logos) and the Holy Spirit (Ghost). ******************************************************************* -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Question No.8 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Jesus said:"He who believes in the son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him." (John 3:36); are you not under the wrath of God for not being a follower of Christ - a Christian, by belief? Answer No.8 ^^^^^^^^^^^ It is an interesting question. In fact, we Muslims should be asking the question to you the followers of Christ. Do the vast majority of Christians truthfully believe Christ for what he said he was, and, truly understand his commands and obey them? We believe, most of the followers who claim to be Christians do not even understand the implications of calling their Leader or Lord; "Christ". (The readers will understand what I mean by the last sentence, once they go through the rest of the text). Here is the answer to your question. The above verse has two parts. `Belief' and `Obedience'. On the subject of Belief in Christ, Jesus asked his disciples; "But who do you say that I am? And Peter answered and said, "The Christ of God." (Luke 9:20). Peter did not say God or a god. We Muslims truly believe Jesus was "The Christ (al-Masih) of God". The expression "The Christ of God" literally means; "The one that was anointed by God himself". Please go back in time and think. God performed the ceremony of anointing (physically or spiritually) and for that reason, Jesus became "The Christ of God". Now may I please ask you a simple question. Who is greater and exalted; the one who anointed, or, the one who got anointed? Since God anointed Jesus, God is the greater and exalted between the two, which we Muslims, do truly believe. But surprisingly, the followers who say Jesus is "Christ", don't. HOT TIP: ^^^^^^^ "...Thy holy Servant Jesus, whom Thou didst anoint,..." (Acts 4:27 - New American Standard Bible). This leaves no room for doubt that Jesus was a `Servant of God'. Besides, there are other verses which declare Jesus; God's Servant. ---------------- Now let us go to the second part of the quoted verse; "obeying the Christ". Please read the following verse and ask yourself a question; have I obeyed? "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears my word, and believes Him who sent me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgement, but has passed out of death into life." John 5:24 Have I believed and placed my trust basically, fundamentally and predominately in Him or in Jesus? Hot Tip: ^^^^^^^^ Jesus said; "But I do not seek my glory; there is One who seeks and judges." John 8:51. Who is this "One", who is not Jesus? Have you basically, essentially and fundamentally glorified the "One" or Jesus? Please remember, the "One" will be the Judge on the Day of Judgement and not Jesus. If you disbelieve or disobey the above word of Jesus please read the verse quoted by you and then think about the "wrath of God". ********************************************************************* -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Question No.9 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ In the Book of Genesis 1:26, we read; "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness..."; does not the use of terms "us" and "our" prove that the God which created man was not a singular entity, furthermore, does it not support the Johnannine concept (John 1:3); all things came into being through Jesus? Answer No.9 ^^^^^^^^^^^ 1. Below is an extract from a commentary for the above verse, written by the editors of King James Version (The Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible, 6th edition): "The Hebrew word for God is `Elohim' (430), a plural noun. In Genesis 1:1, it is used in grammatical agreement with a singular verb `bara' (1254), created. When plural pronouns are used, "Let us make man in our image after our likeness," does it denote a plural of number or the concept of excellence or majesty which may be indicated in such a way in Hebrew? Could God be speaking to angels, the earth, or nature thus denoting Himself in relation to one of these? Or is this a germinal hint of a distinction in the divine personality? One cannot be certain." Having written "One cannot be certain", the editors try to advocate the theory of Jesus, as the "essential (internal) unity of Godhead." 2. The response to your question, as well as, to the commentators remark; "One cannot be certain", lies not very far, but in the next verse (Genesis 1:27), which reads; "And God created man in His own image,..." This statement tells us that the actual act of creation when performed, was performed by "Him" and in "His" image and not by "Us" in "Our" image. Hot Tip: ^^^^^^^^ As a closing conclusive argument, here is a statement of truth from Jesus himself; "And he (Jesus) answered and said unto them, `Have you not read, that He which made them at the beginning made them male and female." (Matthew 19:4). This statement by Jesus also negates the so called Johnannine concept put forward by you (NOT by apostle John); "all things came into being through Jesus." ********************************************************************** -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Question No.10 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ In the Gospel of John, we find that eight days after his resurrection, Jesus stood before his disciples and asked the unbelieving Thomas to feel his hands and side, to verify the nail marks and spear scar. After seeing the hands and the side, Thomas said to Jesus; "My Lord and my God." If Jesus was not God, he would have certainly reprimanded Thomas, but he did no such thing, does this not prove, `Jesus was God'? Answer No.10 ^^^^^^^^^^^^ Please allow me quote from the `New American Standard Bible' the entire text as it appears in Ch.20:27-28 from John's Gospel: "Then he (Jesus) said to Thomas, "Reach here your finger, and see my hands, and reach here your hand, and put it into my side; and be not unbelieving, but believing." Thomas answered and said to him, "My Lord and my God!" 1. Please observe the mark of exclamation (!) at the end of the phrase. (Note: K.J.V. has removed the exclamation mark). 2. Please observe there was no question asked in the entire narration. Hence, the text which reads "Thomas answered" is inaccurate. 3. The last phrase "My Lord and my God!" was not an *answer* but an outburst of *exclamation* by Thomas, having seen something inexplicable and baffling. Often, we too cry out; "O' my God!" when we see something totally bizarre or grotesque. 4. To prove that the above explanation is not my concocted theory, below are the texts from two reputed versions of the Bible that support this theory. a. In the `New English Bible' it reads: Thomas said, "My Lord and my God!" b. In the `Phillips Modern English Bible' it reads: "My Lord and my God!" cried Thomas. HOT TIP: ^^^^^^^^ Apostle John writes, immediately after the discourse between Jesus and Thomas; "Many other signs therefore Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ..." If John had recognized the answer by Thomas to be a testimony for the `Deity of Jesus' and the observed silence by Jesus to be his acquiesce to such a testimony, then John would have written "Jesus is the God" and not "Jesus is the Christ..." ********************************************************************* -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Question No.11 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Apostle Matthew records that Jesus was worshipped by Magi that came from the East (2:11); by the boat people (14:33); by Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (28:9); and also by his disciples on a mountain in Galilee (28:17). Since worshipping any one other than God is a fundamental sin, why did not Jesus stop these people from worshipping him, unless he was God himself? Answer No.11 ^^^^^^^^^^^^ 1. For your information, none of the above worshipped Jesus. Nor, did apostle Matthew record it so. According to the lexical aids to the Bible, the proper Greek word for `worship' is `sebomai' (4576) from the root `seb'. That word `sebomai' is used by apostle Matthew in 15:9 where Jesus said; "But in vain do they worship me,..." The Greek word used by the apostle in the above quotes is `prosekunesan' and not `sebomai'. `Prosekunesan' comes from `proskuneo' (4352), which literally means bow, crouch, crawl, kneel or prostrate. If the apostle wanted to convey; `Jesus was worshipped', he would have used the word `sebomai' which he did not. 2. To prove the point further, in `New English Bible' the translations of the quoted verses read; `bowed to the ground' in (2:11); `fell at his feet' in (14:33); `falling prostrate before him' in (28:9), and `fell prostrate before him' in (28:17). 3. The question of Jesus stopping them for worshipping, therefore does not arise, because they simply bowed or prostrated to him. HOT TIP: ^^^^^^^^ Apostle Mark records in 10:17-18; "And as he (Jesus) was setting out on a journey, a man ran up to him and knelt before him and began asking him, "Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit the eternal life?" And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone." It sounds inharmonious and inconsistent that a person who even refuses to be called "good" could have allowed any one to worship him. Since, no one is good except "God alone", should not Christians be worshipping directly to that solitary God to whom Jesus himself prayed more than a dozen times, according to the Gospels? ********************************************************************** -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Question No.12 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ When prophet Moses asked God; What was His name? What shall he say to his people? From behind the Burning Bush God replied; "I AM THAT I AM." God also asked Moses to say to the sons of Israel: "I AM hath sent me unto you." Exodus 3:14. When confronted by Jews; "Jesus said unto them, `Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am." (John 8:58 K.J.V.). Jesus also said; "I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am (he), ye shall die in your sins. (John 8:24, K.J.V.). Does that not prove, Jesus existed before his birth; he was the One who spoke to Moses from behind the Burning Bush; and if you do not believe that, you will die in your sins? Note: The word `he' in the verse above as well as in the Hot Tip below, appear in the italic types in King James Version (K.J.V.). Since I cannot use italics on e-mail, I have placed the word `he' within parenthesis. Answer No.12 ^^^^^^^^^^^^ Your question is based upon a simple conjecture. Even the editors of K.J.V. insinuate that fact. Under the foot note of Exodus 3:14 the editors write; "Jesus probably alluded to this name of God in John 8:58, `Before Abraham was, I AM." The use of phrase "probably alluded" clearly indicates it is not an established reality. My dear friend, a surmise can never take place of (replace) an acknowledged statement. This is what Jesus said; "...I am (he), and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things." (John 8:28). God of Moses that claimed "I AM THAT I AM" had no instructor or tutor, and, needed no tutoring. If God had an instructor or an educator, then what would you call that entity? God's mentor or boss?? As for the existence of Jesus before his birth, please remember Jesus was anointed by God before he was born. Hence, he was called Christ (Messiah). Besides Jesus, there were others who were either anointed, consecrated or made holy, before their births. (see Ps. 89:20, Is. 45:1, 61:1; 1 Sam. 24:6). God did take a solemn covenant from Novah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus - son of Mary, and Muhammad before they were sent, reveals the Qur'an. Bible records, God came to prophet Jeremiah and said to him; "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations." Jeremiah 1:5. I have question for you. How would you explain this ensuing statement? Jesus said to Jews; "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day, and he saw it, and was glad." (John 8:56) HOT TIP: ^^^^^^^^ When Jews were doubtful about the identity of a particular blind beggar who had been healed by Jesus, the blind beggar - who was no more blind, kept saying; "I am (he)" (John 9:9, K.J.V.). Does that make the blind beggar, God! Further more, the beggar when questioned about Jesus who had healed him, replied to Jews; "And he said, "He is a prophet." (John 9:17). ********************************************************************* -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Question No.13 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Apostle Mark records in 16:19; "...He (Jesus) was received up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God." The question is, who can have such an unparalleled privilege and distinction, besides his own begotten Son? Is there anyone else who has been elevated to that station, in any other scripture? Answer No.13 ^^^^^^^^^^^^ 1. Are you aware of the fact that there are two versions of Mark's Gospel? One is called the shorter version and other, the longer version. The shorter version, which ends at verse 8, does not contain the above verse. 2. One of the two great achievements of an eminent biblical critic of the nineteenth century, Lobegott Friedrich Konstantin Von Tischendorf, was the historical discovery of the oldest known Bible manuscript `Codex Sinaiticus' from St. Catherine's Monastery in Mt. Sinai. The most damaging piece of evidence that Tischendorf discovered in this 5th century document was that the gospel of Mark ended at 16:8. In other words, the last 12 verses (Mark 16:9 to 20) were "injected" sometime after the 5th century. Clement of Alexandria and Origen never quoted these verses. Later on, it was also discovered that the said 12 verses, wherein lies the various accounts of "Resurrected Jesus", do not appear in codices Syriacus, Vaticanus and Bobiensis. Today, in many of the revised versions of the Bible, the said twelve verses appear within parentheses. Tischendorf also discovered that John's gospel was heavily reworked. For example, verses starting from John 7:53 to 8:11 are not to be found in codices Sinaiticus or Vaticanus. Similarly, a verse from the gospel of Luke that speaks of Peter running to the tomb, stooping and looking in and finding it empty and marvelling at what had happened is not to be found in the ancient manuscripts. (For detailed information please read `Secrets of Mount Sinai' by James Bentley, Orbis, London, 1985). 3. Peake's Commentary on the Bible records; "It is now generally agreed that 9-20 are not an original part of Mk. They are not found in the oldest MSS, and indeed were apparently not in the copies used by Mt. and Lk. A 10th-cent. Armenian MS ascribes the passage to Aristion, the presbyter mentioned by Papias (ap.Eus.HE III, xxxix, 15)." HOT TIP: ^^^^^^^^ The Book of Revelation (symbolic and obscure writings of uncertain authorship), records in 3:21 that Jesus sat down with his Father on his Father's throne. You write, based upon injected verse; Jesus sat down at the right hand side of God. Which one do you believe? ******************************************************************* -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Question No.14 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ In the Epistle of Paul to Romans, it reads; "that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you shall be saved; for with the heart man believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation." (Roman 10:9-10, NASB). The salvation is assured to us Christians who confess with our mouth and heart; Jesus Christ to be our Lord. What do Muslims have for their salvation? Answer No.14 ^^^^^^^^^^^^ This is a preferred verse with the evangelic missionaries. It is one of the bases of the Christianity propagated by Paul and needs to be addressed in detail and from various perspectives. 1. This is a quotation from one of the Epistles (letters) written by Paul. While reading a passage from an Epistle one has to bear in mind that these letters when written by the author, were a sort of discourse containing religious instructions and admonitions, and, were not intended to form a part and parcel of the canonical Scripture. 2. To substantiate the above claim, please read 1 Corin 7:25-26 and 7:40. Here Paul writes; "I give an opinion"; "in my opinion" and "I think" (twice). Whereas, Jesus - the prophet of God, admitted; "...and I do nothing on my own initiative, but I speak these things as the Father taught me." (John 8:28). One has to differentiate "my opinion" and "my thought" from the "inspired" or the divinely "tutored" document. 3. In 2 Corin 12:16, Paul - a zealous persecutor of the disciples that overnight became a fervent propagator of `Christianity', makes a perplexing statement; "...crafty fellow that I am, I took you in by deceit." Jesus was a righteous prophet propagating the `Kingdom of God'. His mission was, alike every other Jewish prophet, to glorify God alone. 4. Imagine, you are at a crossroad. There are three signs. Paul transcribes; Take the Left turn to reach the Destination. Jesus transcribes; Take the Right turn. The Old Testaments transcribes; Take the Right turn. Which way should you be headed if you wish to reach the Destination with certainty? Please bear this viewpoint in mind, while comparing various passages from the Bible. 5. Now let us go to Roman 10:9-10, the verses quoted by you in the above question. Please continue reading the succeeding verses, which say; "For the Scripture says, `Whoever believes in Him will not be disappointed.' For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ all who call upon Him; for `Whoever will call upon the name of the Lord will be saved." (Roman 10:11-13). Note: The editors of the New Testament have created confusion by translating the Greek word `Theos' (meaning, God) as "Lord". And, the Greek word `Kurios' (meaning, Master, Owner, Head of a house) as "Lord", as well. For those who consider Jesus to be God, it may not make any difference, but for the rest it does. 6. To resolve the dilemma as to who is this "the same Lord" who is the Lord of Jews, of Greeks and of all; let us go to verses 3:29-30 in the same Epistle. It reads; "Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also-if indeed God is one- and He will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith." Jews never accepted Jesus as their Prophet or Messiah, leave alone accepting him as their Lord (Master) or as their Lord (God). So, "Lord Jesus" is out of the picture, leaving "Lord the God" to be the "one God" of all. 7. To answer your specific question, the verse above reads; "Whoever will call upon the name of the Lord (Lord of all) will be saved." We Muslims call upon the name of that Almighty God, the God of all, who pronounced His Commands to Adam, Noah, Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David, Solomon, Jesus, Muhammad and many others (peace be upon all the prophets). 8. BTW, the verses that you have originally quoted has one very portentous underlying theme which you probably might have over looked. It says; "and (if you) believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you shall be saved." This sentence conveys there were two separate entities: a. One called Jesus, who was dead and lying motionless in a tomb. b. One called God, who was alive and able to perform acts. The entity (b) raised the entity (a) that was in an agony. "And God raised him up again, putting an end to the agony of death..." Acts 2:24. I hope you will henceforth recognize "the dead" and "the alive" to be two distinct entities and "un-equal", whenever you think of the "Risen Jesus". 9. Would it not be an unfair practise on part of the Almighty God to have sent His son as a "Saviour to all" thousands of years after Adam. Did not that deprive those born before the Christian Era of "the easy way out" to the Salvation? God cannot be unfair. He is a Righteous God. May be the entire concept is an Innovation. 10. Tom Harpur, a former professor of New Testament and an Anglican Minister writes; "Perhaps I am lacking in piety or some basic instinct, but I know I am not alone in finding the idea of Jesus' death as atonement for the sins of all humanity on one level bewildering and on the other morally repugnant. Jesus never to my knowledge said anything to indicate that forgiveness from God could only be granted `after' or `because of' the cross." (For Christ's Sake, p.75). HOT TIP: ^^^^^^^^ "And there is no other God besides Me, A righteous God and a Saviour; There is none except Me. `Turn to Me, and be saved, all the ends of the earth; For I am God, and there is no other." Isaiah 45:21-22. (please also read Hosea 13:4). When God said; "all the ends of the earth" He righteously meant it to be so. The era of "cross" should make no difference. BTW, if you truly accept the end part of the quoted Isaiah, you have accepted the first half of the `Confession of Islamic Faith' called "Shahadah". Help: Do you have contacts with the editors of Islamic Magazines or ^^^^^ the publishers like ISNA, ICNA, WAMY? If so, please request them to serialise FAQ/BIBLE. ****************************************************************** -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Question No.15 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ From the prologue of John's Gospel, I have a very valid and legitimate three part question:- (a) Was not Jesus God from the beginning? Verse upholding (a); In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (John 1:1) (b) Were not all things made through Jesus?? Verses upholding (b); He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through him; and apart from him nothing came into being that has come into being. (John 1:2-3) (c) Was not Jesus made flesh and dwelt among us??? Verse upholding (c); And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1:14) Answer No.15 ^^^^^^^^^^^^ This three part question is so often repeated, collectively or individually, that I will try to answer them (God-willing), from various perspectives. For an uncomplicated comprehension, I am going to separate the three part question into three separate questions. In this number fifteen, I will deal with part (a) above. 1. The verse insinuates "Jesus was God from the beginning" because Christians have, for the last numerous generations, embraced the concept of SUBSTITUTING the word "Word" (Greek term `Logos') with "Jesus". John did not write "Jesus". It is a SUBSTITUTION. 2. One can only SUBSTITUTE (of course with admissible logic), the original term *IF* the LITERAL translation of the used term fails to reconcile with the rest of the text. Unfortunately, as you will soon discover, the situation here is the other way around. 3. Please read the last two lines from (a) with the SUBSTITUTION. It reads; "and Jesus was with God and Jesus was God." How can Jesus be "with" God and "was" God, as well? It defies the logic. The SUBSTITUTION creates an enigmatic dilemma to which the Christian scholars have yet to find an answer. 4. The norm of accepting the SUBSTITUTION has been so deep rooted that no believing Christian scholar has sincerely attempted to find out what in reality is the LITERAL translation. Let us do it together. The Greek term `Logos' is derived from the root word `Lego' meaning `to speak'. The literal translation of `Logos' is `something spoken or thought'. The verification of the above translation is simple. Please pick up your English Dictionary and look for the word `Decalogue'. Surprised! It reads; `The Ten Commandments'. (deka=ten; logous=commands). Now please flip a few more pages of your dictionary and go to the word `Logos'. Please look for the word origin. In my pocket `Oxford Dictionary' it reads; "[Gk, = reason, discourse, (rarely) word]." 5. Having discovered the LITERAL translation of the word "Logos" used by apostle John, let us read (a): In the beginning was the `spoken word, command', and the `spoken word, command' was with God, and the `spoken word, command' was Divine. (John 1:1) 6. The LITERAL translation is not only logical but it coincides perfectly with the prologue of the Book of Genesis. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." "And the God said, Let there be light; and there was light." (Genesis 1:1 and 3) ^^^^^ 7. You may now ask, why did I translate "Divine" instead of "God" in the last line?. The answer is based upon the usage of Greek grammar. In the second line, the phrase used by John for "God" is `ho theo', meaning `the God'. In the last line it is simply `theo', the definitive article `the' is not used. Why? Because, it is a predicate of the subject `ho theo'. The predicate is used to denote the nature, quality, attribute or property of the subject. Here the in this instance the nature of the God's spoken command was Divine. 8. In `New translation of the Bible' (1922) by the famous Dr. James Moffatt, it reads; "the Logos was Divine." And, also in `The Complete Bible - An American Translation' (Smith-Goodspeed) and `The Authentic New Testament' by Hugh J. Schonfield. Please look for No. 16 and 17 for answers to (b) and (c) above. HOT TIP: ^^^^^^^^ Paul wrote; "...if any man is preaching to you a Gospel contrary to which you received, let him be accursed (anathema)." Gal. 1:9. Suggestion: ^^^^^^^^^^^ Who does not like to make some money as a side income! Print a booklet of FAQs/BIBLE. Put a price on it and sell. Make some money. No royalty expected. My recompense `Ajar' is with Allah. ******************************************************************** -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Question No.16 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ From the prologue of John's Gospel, I have a very valid and legitimate three part question:- (a) Was not Jesus God from the beginning? Verse upholding (a); In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (John 1:1) (b) Were not all things made through Jesus?? Verses upholding (b); He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through him; and apart from him nothing came into being that has come into being. (John 1:2-3) (c) Was not Jesus made flesh and dwelt among us??? Verse upholding (c); And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1:14) Answer No.16 ^^^^^^^^^^^^ Below is a response to part (b) above. Part (a) has been replied under FAQ number 15. Part (c) will be replied under FAQ number 17. 1. The opening word of John 1:2 in the Greek text is `houtos' (3778), which translates `the same'. The usage of word "He" in the above quote, is based upon the traditional concept of SUBSTITUTING the Greek term "Logos" with "Jesus", as explained in FAQ 15. 2. In the King James Version, it reads; "The same was in the beginning with God", which supports the above clarification. 3. Based upon the LITERAL translation of the word "Logos" as explained in FAQ 15, the verse should read; "The same (i.e. the spoken divine word, command) was in the beginning with the God." This LITERAL translation coincides with the opening of the Old Testament. (Genesis 1:3,6,11,14,20 & 24). 4. In John 1:3 above, the Greek word used for "him" is `autos' (846), which means; her, it (-self); (self-) the same; (him-, my-, thy-,) self; etc. If one was to continue the LITERAL translation from the beginning, the verse should read; All things came into being through it; and apart from it nothing came into being that has come into being. (John 1:3) Here "it" stands for "the spoken divine word, command." 5. For some reason, one was to quote Colossians 1:16 which reads; "For in Him all things were created, both in the heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities - all things have been created through Him and for Him." And, go on contending that in the above letter by Paul, "Him" refers to "Jesus", and his/her beliefs are valid, please let him/her read the following. 6. In `The Oxford Companion to the Bible", edited by Bruce M. Metzger and Michael D. Coogan, published by the Oxford University Press, on page 127, it reads; "The Pauline authorship of Colossians has often been challenged over the last 160 years. The grounds for this questioning concern the language and style of the letter; more recently it has been argued that there are major differences between Colossians and the theology of the main Pauline letters, particularly in relation to the person and cosmic work of Christ, the Church as the body of Christ, and early Christian tradition." 7. If all things, including men and women were created through Jesus, then the righteous Jesus would not have told the Pharisees that from the beginning "God" created man and woman. (Matt. 19:4). 8. However, if the person is unwilling to write-off the so called canonical letter by Paul on the basis of the above two observations, please ask him/her to read the quoted scripture below which unequivocally tells us that "God" created man, made the earth and stretched out the heavens with HIS OWN HANDS. HOT TIP: ^^^^^^^^ "It is I who made the earth, and created man upon it. I stretched out the heavens with My hands, And I ordained all their host." (Isaiah 45:12). Please also read Psalms 147-148, where the Psalmist bids Zion to "Praise your (their) God", who has done multitude of things and created; the heavens, the heights, His angels, His hosts, Sun, Moon, Stars and the waters that are above the heavens, by His own Command. *************************************************************** -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Question No.17 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ From the prologue of John's Gospel, I have a very valid and legitimate three part question:- (a) Was not Jesus God from the beginning? Verse upholding (a); In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (John 1:1) (b) Were not all things made through Jesus?? Verses upholding (b); He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through him; and apart from him nothing came into being that has come into being. (John 1:2-3) (c) Was not Jesus made flesh and dwelt among us??? Verse upholding (c); And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1:14) Answer No.17 ^^^^^^^^^^^^ Below is a response to part (c) above. Parts (a) and (b) have been replied under FAQ 15 and 16. 1. To comprehend what apostle John wrote in (c) above, one has to read what John wrote ten verses earlier, i.e. in John 1:4. According to the LITERAL translation, in that verse, John wrote; "In it was life; and the life was the light of men." 2. As demonstrated earlier the word "it" stands for "Logos" (the divine command that was in the beginning with the God). Consequently, "In it (in the God's command was life); and that life was the light (the guidance, enlightenment) for men." 3. I have rendered "light" as the guidance and enlightenment, because in 1:9 John wrote; "There was the true light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man". 4. Unfortunately, "And the light shines in the darkness; and the darkness did not comprehend it (him)." (John 1:5). Note: In either case; the word "it" which stands for God's command, or "him" which stands for Jesus, makes sense. 5. Going back to (c) above; "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth." (John 1:14). What the apostle LITERALLY meant was; "And the Logos (the God's command, which was from the beginning with God, wherein was the life) became flesh, and dwelt among us,..." 6. Briefly, the embodiment in flesh was of "Logos" - the God's command, and NOT of the God. The conception of Jesus within the womb of his mother, Virgin Mary, was in reality made possible by an act of God's command - the "Logos". Jesus was neither God nor the physical incarnation of God. 7. The entire text which reads; "and we be held his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father" is written within parentheses in the Kings James Version. Hence, it is considered as the editor's enhanced notes or addendum. 8. As for the true meaning of the original term used by John in his Gospel, for the mistranslated phrase "the only begotten", please see the earlier answers. HOT TIP: ^^^^^^^^ To those who prefer to contend; (a) "and the Word (Jesus) was *with* God" (John 1:1). (b) "He (Jesus) was in the beginning *with* God" (John 1:2). (c) "And the Word (Jesus) *became* flesh" (John 1:14) they have no recourse but to admit that it was either at the *beginning* or after the act of *becoming* happened, "Jesus" who was "with" God or "became" flesh, had to be either an additional, other, different, distinct, or dissimilar entity than the God. Now, having no way to retreat, please read the following: "No one can serve two masters;..." Matthew 6:24 If you wish choose the ONE and the only Master, please read; "Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honour and glory forever and ever. Amen." 1 Timothy 1:17 Can any one deny; "Jesus" who dwelt among us, was "visible"! **************************************************************** -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Question No.18 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ While declaring Christ's superiority to the Angels, in the Epistle to the Hebrews, God said to Jesus: 1. Thou art My Son, Today I have begotten Thee. 1:5 2. Let all the Angels worship you. 1:6 3. Sit on My right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool. 1:13 How can you deny these "Words of God"? Answer No.18 ^^^^^^^^^^^^ 1. Before I answer your question, please tell me who was the author of this letter (Epistle) to the Hebrews from which you have submitted the above "Words of God"? Before one places his/her confidence in the quoted texts and builds up the faith, it is equitable and fair to first identify the authorship of the letter. 2. Have you noticed that the name of the author, which is invariably mentioned in the title (heading) of every Epistle, is conspicuously missing in the Hebrews. To know the reason why, please read the followings: 3. The King James Version is supposed to be the most conservative biblical version. The editors of K.J.V. (New Revised and Updated 6th, the Hebrew/Greek Key Study, Red Letter Edition), in their introduction to the Epistle to the Hebrews, write: "The author of the Book of Hebrews is unknown. Martin Luther suggested that Apollos was the author...Tertullian said that Hebrews was a letter of Barnabas...Adolf Harnack and J. Rendel Harris speculated that it was written by Priscilla (or Prisca). William Ramsey suggested that it was done by Philip. However, the traditional position is that the Apostle Paul wrote Hebrews...Eusebius believed that Paul wrote it, but Origen was not positive of Pauline authorship." 4. The traditional position that "Apostle Paul wrote Hebrews" is seriously undermined by the fact that the Epistle to Hebrews does not begin with his personal name. For your information, each and every other Epistle of Paul begins with his personal name. The Hebrews begin with God's name. Further, Paul had specified that his letters will bear his signature. 5. The Epistle to the Hebrews is not listed in the 6th century list of the manuscripts called Codex Claromon. This leads to the suspicion that it could have been written at a later date. 6. The critics who have studied the text of Hebrews suggest, it is not likely the work of Paul. It was written much later to prove the superiority of God's Son (Jesus) over God's Prophets (Abraham and others). In other words, the document was created by a pseudo author to prove the superiority of Christianity over Judaism. 7. All the three quoted passages from the Hebrews are in fact the direct quotes from Psalms. (Psalms 2:7; 97:7; 110:1). To say that the Psalmist had written these Songs "about Jesus" and not "about characters from their history" needs hard evidence, which is not to be found in the Psalms. Lack of such evidences have lead the bible critics to question: Were the prophecies of the Old Testament fulfilled by the history, or, the history was written to fulfil the prophecies? (May I add, specially when the authorship is questioned, not by the outsiders, but the insiders! KJV). HOT TIP: ^^^^^^^ Al-Hamdulillah (Praise be to "the God"), you yourself have indirectly admitted, by submitting the above three quotations that there is only ONE who is: 1. The Eternal 2. The Worthy of Prayers 3. The Supreme. Your quotes and my submissions: 1. Thou art My Son, Today I have begotten Thee. ^^^^^ Yesterday, the Son did not exist. "The God" alone is "The Eternal". ^^^^^^^^^ 2. Let all the Angels worship you. If you believe, since Angels worshipped Jesus, `Jesus is Worthy of Prayers' then in the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus "fell on his face and prayed, saying, `My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me." (Matthew 26:39). Hence, the Heavenly Father - "The God" is "The Worthy of Prayers" from Jesus, Angels and every one. 3. Sit on My right hand,.... Does not the above sentence clearly demonstrate (manifest) that "The God" who articulated or commanded the above, was sitting on the "Supreme Throne" and Jesus was standing and waiting to be told to sit down, next to him? "The God" is "THE SUPREME". Note: All the prophets, including Jesus used to "fall on their ^^^^^ faces" like we Muslims do, while praying. See; Abraham, Genesis 17:3; Job, Job 1:20; Moses and Aaron, Numbers 16:22; Jesus, Mt.26:39. http://wings.buffalo.edu/sa/muslim/isl/bible/biblefaq.html
|
| | Thursday, September 14, 2000 - 07:28 am "asad what does old people finding animals important have anything to do with hundreds of years the sacrifices were done by old AND young?" i told you that God forgives without the shedding of blood. to say that God will not and does not forgive without there being blood shed is crazy and false. adam's and hawa's sins were forgiven without there being blood shed. "Yet, the Bible is still the international best seller of all time no matter what the Muslims say. After all the abuse that's a miracle in itself... the Qu'ran doesn't come close. God is protecting His true Word." are you saying God is protecting corruption, contradictions and abuse that is found in the bible?. if God would have protected the bible, there would not be corruption, contradictions and abuse in the bible.
|
| | Thursday, September 14, 2000 - 11:36 am Asad Are you related to Tolstoy? That last entry was longer than War and Peace. As you know, I agree with you that the Bible is not devine. It is clearly a collection of eyewitness and second hand accounts. I would like to see more details from the Dead Sea Scrolls as they would probably provide some additional accounts that were previously lost to the ages. I also agree with you that God does not protect the Bible. But what ybout the Book of Mormon? Was Joseph Smith simply a fraud?
|
| | Thursday, September 14, 2000 - 11:51 am "Asad Are you related to Tolstoy? That last entry was longer than War and Peace." LOL "I also agree with you that God does not protect the Bible. But what ybout the Book of Mormon? Was Joseph Smith simply a fraud" yes, joseph smith was an imposter. he lied and said God sent him as a prophet. thus, his book is full of lies. Allah does not protect lies. we know from the Qur'an that muhammad was the last prophet that Allah sent.
|
| | Thursday, September 14, 2000 - 10:23 pm Asad I have to respecfully disagree (you'll note here I did not say you're lying). I believe he was a prophet - or what I would call a prophet. Let me take this a step further. I was say that "Prophets" have an ability to communicate with God that surpasses ours. An insight that is superior to the average mans. Some prophets undoubtedly have this insight to a greater extent than others. Since speech is an imperfect medium of communication the messages that they transcribe are necessarily incomplete and imperfect. What if some archeological evidence "proved" Joseph Smiths version of these two North American tribes was correct???? What would you say to that??? Another question, what if God wanted to send another Prophet???? Not to write a book but simply to communicate his message more fully. Would this man be killed if he appeared in Saudi Arabia??? Does this mean that because 1,500 years ago God then intended not to send another prophet he can not now??
|
| | Friday, September 15, 2000 - 05:12 am "I believe he was a prophet - or what I would call a prophet." then, he lied to you. the difference between you and me is that. you do not believe God when he said muhammad is the last prophet of Allah. you reject His Words. this makes you a kufar. i'm a muslim. " Let me take this a step further. I was say that "Prophets" have an ability to communicate with God that surpasses ours." yes, but this joseph prophet of yours was no prophet. he might have had the ability to communicate with what he thought was God, but i think he was communicating with the devil or he lied t you. "Some prophets undoubtedly have this insight to a greater extent than others." yes, but not the imposters like this joseph smith guy you are talking about. he is a lair, a kadaab. "Since speech is an imperfect medium of communication the messages that they transcribe are necessarily incomplete and imperfect." when God communicated with the prophet of Allah, there were no imperfectness or incompleteness with their communication. whatever they talked about was complete and perfect. "What if some archeological evidence "proved" Joseph Smiths version of these two North American tribes was correct???? What would you say to that??? " can the archeological evidence "prove" that he was a prophet of Allah? "Another question, what if God wanted to send another Prophet????" God does not double talk. He said there would not be another prophet after muhammad and that is final. "Would this man be killed if he appeared in Saudi Arabia???" he may. there was another guy who claimed to have been a messenger from Allah. he appeared in the united states. he was killed in Arizona. "Does this mean that because 1,500 years ago God then intended not to send another prophet he can not now?? i told you that God does not double talk. He said there would not be another prophet after muhammad and that is final. you want to believe there is another prophet after muhammad, that is your choice, but he is to us an imposter.
|
| | Friday, September 15, 2000 - 05:17 am i believe that there were two other guys who claimed to have been modern day prophets, like jesus. their names were david korash and jim jones. the united states of america killed david korash and those who were with him. before they could reach this other person, he killed himself along with his followers .
|
| | Friday, September 15, 2000 - 07:55 am Asad You are correct about both Jones and Koresh. However, Koresh wasn't killed for claiming he was a prophet. He was killed in the extended effort to arrest him for numerous crimes including the multiple rape of young girls. As I'm sure you're aware, I could run around America and claim I was a Prophet and most people would ignore me and assume I was some sort of nut. Certainly I would not be arrested and executed after a trial in which I was sentanced to death. I am not saying everyone who claims to be a prophet is one. But I do not believe Mohamed was the last Prophet and I believe the messages of the prophets are, in fact, incomplete and imperfect and because of the limitations of language must be so.
|
| | Friday, September 15, 2000 - 10:25 am "You are correct about both Jones and Koresh. However, Koresh wasn't killed for claiming he was a prophet. He was killed in the extended effort to arrest him for numerous crimes including the multiple rape of young girls." in islam, misleading people while claiming to be a man of God (lying about Allah) is crime, just as rape of young girls is crime. many american think david koresh's case has nothing to do with crimes he may or may not have committed, but he claiming and practicing what he believed to have to been the truth which was his wrong faith. many people followed him. did they also commit the crime (rape) which they were killed for? "As I'm sure you're aware, I could run around America and claim I was a Prophet and most people would ignore me and assume I was some sort of nut." as long as there are no follower under your camp, like jim jones and devid korash. "Certainly I would not be arrested and executed after a trial in which I was sentanced to death." maybe most people who claim to have been prophets of God, do not want to be brought to trail. they rather fight for their rights, even if they have to take lots of people with them. the practical thing then is to burn them alive with their followers in a camp as they did with david korash and his people. "I am not saying everyone who claims to be a prophet is one." certainly, not the joseph guy whom you believe to be a prophet, the imposter. " But I do not believe Mohamed was the last Prophet" that is what makes you a kufar. i'm a muslim. "and I believe the messages of the prophets are, in fact, incomplete and imperfect and because of the limitations of language must be so." Allah said in His Book (the Qur'an), His message to muhammad is complete and perfect. whoever disbelieves this becomes a kufar in whatever language he may speak.
|
| | Saturday, September 16, 2000 - 02:26 am Asad Well sahib, I'll give you this, you're hard core. As for Koresh, he was killed in the process of his arrest. However, I continue to maintain that an individual who simply claims he's a prophet is committing no crime, regardless of how many people follow him. If you insist that people only have freedom of speech when it fits into certain parameters then they really have no freedom of speech because they will live in fear that what they say will be turned around by a court that is against their basic ideas - like freedom. This is what has happened in Saudi Arabia today. Women there wouldn't even talk to me for fear of the Matawa. They had no freedom and they knew it.
|
| | Saturday, September 16, 2000 - 02:47 am "Well sahib, I'll give you this, you're hard core." you are not so bad either. "As for Koresh, he was killed in the process of his arrest." if i asked him who killed the children who was with him, he would say he did not. united state claim that they went to save children but they burned them alive. "However, I continue to maintain that an individual who simply claims he's a prophet is committing no crime, regardless of how many people follow him." well, an individual who claims to be a prophet and lies about Allah while misleading people has committed a crime in islam. misleading people and risking their lives is crime. "If you insist that people only have freedom of speech when it fits into certain parameters then they really have no freedom of speech because they will live in fear that what they say will be turned around by a court that is against their basic ideas - like freedom." an individual in america has no freedom of speech if he chooses to scream fire fire fire in a crowded movie theater. if he does not have the freedom to do such things, then really he has no freedom of speech. misleading people and risking their lives is crime.
|
| | Sunday, September 17, 2000 - 11:42 pm Asad "Misleading people and risking their lives is a crime" - True. But a false Prophet is not risking their lives unless he says something like "Today, we are all going to jump off the Brooklyn Bridge." and causes a mass suicide. Personally I look at this as cleaning the gene pool. I mean, anyone stupid enough to jump off the Brooklyn bridge probably isn't contributing much to society anyway. But even stupid people have a right to life, so this would still be a crime. BUT if he is just preaching his own, new found religion, well that is definately in the bounds of freedom of expression. Under the Islamic definition, all non-Islamic missionaries should be killed. This means that Christians who kill Muslims are justified, since every Muslim is suppose to be a missionary. If both sides adopt this attitude (which may seem ludicrous to you and I, but to our more uncivil breathren....) everyone could kill off everyone in no time. And of course, with our dominance in weaponry, the Islamic countries wouldn't fair so well in this kill all. What was it David Duchoovny said "A leads to B leads to C leads to Z which you have become."
|
| | Monday, September 18, 2000 - 01:00 am "BUT if he is just preaching his own, new found religion, well that is definately in the bounds of freedom of expression." a man can practice his own religion, but when he is actively distorting islam and causing fitnah in the hope of misleading people from the right bath, he is going to get punished for it in an islamic court. if a militia leader in any state now decides to break away from the states and forms his own state and declares to be a president of that state and he actively recruits people, do you think the united states of america would not punish him. notice that this self declared president will not obey the laws of this country and would not pay tax. Do you think he will be left alone to preach and form his new found position or he would have to face criminal activities? "Under the Islamic definition, all non-Islamic missionaries should be killed." in an islamic state, people have practiced and followed their own religion freely. "This means that Christians who kill Muslims are justified, since every Muslim is suppose to be a missionary. If both sides adopt this attitude (which may seem ludicrous to you and I, but to our more uncivil breathren....) everyone could kill off everyone in no time. And of course, with our dominance in weaponry, the Islamic countries wouldn't fair so well in this kill all." a country has the right to do what it wishes. a country can decide who can come to its land and who can not come. i can not come to america if i want to practice polygamy if i want to which is my religious rights. however, if a muslm person practices his religion and preaches it and a christian wants to kill him for this, then the muslim has to fight and defend himself, even if he is weak---lacks or does not have military hardware. "What was it David Duchoovny said "A leads to B leads to C leads to Z which you have become." what was his name who said "give me death or give me liberty"?
|
| | Thursday, September 21, 2000 - 04:42 pm Dear Runta please get out of this sitaution because it is for muslims only. Go argue with your gaal friends. Why are you posting so much non sense of topics. Are you that lonely? You will worry about your sins and disbelievs towards the Mercyful Allah in the day of judgement unless you change. Please stop this ignorance, you are embrassing yourself. Gaals mean nothing to us and to Allah. They don't wash their ass after sheeting and you are telling us about their issues, and religions, their must something wrong with this picture. To be honest we don't care about gaal, so stop sucking up to them, and get off.
|
| | Friday, September 22, 2000 - 06:19 am Canab, I stay.
|
| | Monday, September 25, 2000 - 01:33 am Beenta DO NOT preach Christianity in this forums. We are not going to worship that which you worship. No one is interested to hear what you have to say. GO AWAY
|
| | Monday, September 25, 2000 - 02:10 am Xohiya You already worship what she worships you just don't see it. I can't believe you wrote no one is interested in hearing what she has to say. Look at all the posts on this thread. Obviously some people are interested in what she has to say. They may not agree, but that doesn't mean that no one wants to hear her. Hard as it might be to accept, everyone has the right to express their opinions. I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. The Prophet Mohamed allowed freedom of discourse around him - indeed allowed Christians to live in his city (funny they can't do that anymore). If you want people to be tolerant of you, you must be tolerant of them. What goes aruond comes around Sahib.
|
| | Monday, September 25, 2000 - 10:08 am "The Prophet Mohamed allowed freedom of discourse around him - indeed allowed Christians to live in his city (funny they can't do that anymore)." yes, prophet muhammad preached and practiced islam. in spain, the christinas killed muslms who were living there and they also kicked those others who they could not kill out from that country. how tolerant were the christians, then? "If you want people to be tolerant of you, you must be tolerant of them. What goes aruond comes around Sahib." yes, what goes around comes around. there is no such think as turn the other cheeck.
|
| | Monday, September 25, 2000 - 11:28 am MAD KAAFIR wrote "Xohiya You already worship what she worships you just don't see it." Does a muslim worship: GOD THE FATHER+JESUS THE SON+ HOLY SPIRIT' ?. Does a muslim believe1+1+1=1 At least I have seen that claim in your missionary website mister MAD. LOOK AT THIS HYPOCRICY of using prophet mohammed to get some sympathy from muslims: "The Prophet Mohamed allowed freedom of discourse around him - indeed allowed Christians to live in his city (funny they can't do that anymore). " I HAVE THIS QUESTION FOR MAD; WHY DID IT TAKE YOU TWO YEARS TO HAVE THE GUTTS TO SAY WHO YOU ARE INSTEAD BEING FORCED OUT OF THE DARK?.
|
| | Tuesday, September 26, 2000 - 01:20 am Asad Why do you always feel you have to cite some Christian thesis or historical event when responding to one of my points. I'm not a Christian remember??????? Yes, the inquisition in Spain (and elsewhere in Europe) was barbaric. I'm not about to defend it. But it had nothing to do with the teaching of Christ. Even from a Biblical perspective you will not find anywhere in there where it says "torture those who disagree with you." That was a power struggle, a political cataclysm driven by a lust for power. Religion was the excuse, not the reason. Do you think any of the inquisitors actually believed that crap??? Come one. Just because what goes around comes around does not mean there is no such thing as turn the other cheek. this is a central teaching of Issa that Islam rejects. Because all Christians don't practice it doesn't mean it's invalid. Indeed, even the Qur'an, as you pointed out to me, teaches that it is better to forgive, it just says that not forgiving is not sinful. Hence an Islamic argument can be made that Islam does preach turn the other cheek, just not as an absolute. Hey, you got me thinking though. At what point did Mecca become a Muslim only city where infidelts where not allowed? What caused that to happen and who was it who banned them??? Was it a result of the war with the Pagans or was it something subsequent? Why all infidels, as opposed to just the offending ones (assuming it was some sort of transgression)? Do you know the history of that?? Formerguest I don't have a website. So I don't know how you saw it there. Christians, Jews and Muslims (Asad note how I got that right - I wanted to put Moslems) all pray to the same God, the God of Abraham. They may argue about the nature of that God, but it's the same God. Even the Qur'an specifies that. Wake up and smell the coffee. As for "why did it take two years to come out?"" What the hell are you talking about?????? I'm a Macist. I am not a Christian. I DO NOT BELIEVE IN THE TRINITY NOR DO I BELIEVE THAT CHRIST WAS MORE THAN A PROPHET. So stop being a dumbass. I may explain Christian viewpoints. I may even argue on behalf of some of those viewpoints I accept. I also argue that Mohamed was a Prophet. You only hear what you want to hear. You do what so many Muslims love to do - pick out a given line or a given verse and use it to rationalize something or to attempt to discredit someone. You act like this was just a simple exercise in logic.
|
| | Tuesday, September 26, 2000 - 05:04 am "Just because what goes around comes around does not mean there is no such thing as turn the other cheek. this is a central teaching of Issa that Islam rejects." prophet jesus, moses and muhammad preached both what goes around comes around, an eye for an eye; a tooth for a tooth and turn the other cheek, forgive and forget when it is necessary. the christians claim that jesus preached turn the other cheek all the times. didn't he say he came not to destroy the law, the law of moses which is included----an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth? mac mac, there were no differences in the teachings of prophet jesus, moses and muhammad. how many times do i have to tell you that prophet jesus preached islam, mad mac? jesus never rejected islam. jesus ordered his decibels to defend and take up arm against their enemy when it was necessary. it is in the bible, but i guess you never read the bible you were raised up with.! "Hey, you got me thinking though. At what point did Mecca become a Muslim only city where infidelts where not allowed? What caused that to happen and who was it who banned them??? Was it a result of the war with the Pagans or was it something subsequent? Why all infidels, as opposed to just the offending ones (assuming it was some sort of transgression)? Do you know the history of that?? " muslims and the prophet were prosecuted and kicked out from that city 10 years before their return. also, the order of the ban of alcohol came later; the order of the 5 times prayers came after many years. muslims used to face jerusalem before, but the order of facing mecca came later on. the order that the infidels can not come inside the house of Allah came when muhammd and the muslims return to the city. i don't think the ban is the result of wars or something subsequent. anyone who worships any other god other than Allah, the ONE, can not come to that city. it is an order from Allah. the house must be free from filth. INAMAL MUSHRIKIINA NAJISUN. it is in the Qura'n. you want to come to that city, you must profess at the gate. ASH HADU AN LAA'ILAAHA ILA'LAAH WA ASH HADU ANNA MUHAMMADAN CABDAHU WA RASUULAHU. in the united states, there are many rules a person from another country must abide if he or she wants to come to this country, right, mad mac?
|
| | Tuesday, September 26, 2000 - 10:39 pm Don't get me wrong, I'm not criticizing. I hate Saudi Arabia anyway. I wouldn't go back on a bet. The place is a shithole, so nothing is pulling me towards it. It's just a curiosity point. I didn't know how long that was a rule for. I wonder what they did with the Chrisitians who lived there at the time? You know, the apolitical, humdrum, nobodies that had a shop or whatever? Guess they were bought out. concerning Issa, I think you are wrong. I think he definately preached a FAR, FAR more concilatory tone than either Moses or Mohamed. Now what did I tell you about the bible before??? It is a collection of eyewitness and second and third hand accounts. It is neccessarily inaccurate. In order to understand the teachings of Issa you must read the whole thing and absorb the entire message. There are trends - you've got to look for them. Some of the quotes are going to be wrong. You can't look for one liners to find the answers in life Sahib. It's more complicated than that. If you read all the books you will find a trend - and that trend is toward reconcilliation and kindness, even in the face of the enemy. Love thy enemy was, without a doubt in my military mind, a teaching of Issa. Wish I could follow that one.
|
| | Wednesday, September 27, 2000 - 04:52 am "concerning Issa, I think you are wrong. I think he definately preached a FAR, FAR more concilatory tone than either Moses or Mohamed." again, you are telling lies. maybe you have not read muhammad's teachings. did you read when he entered macca victoriously---how he was conciliatory and forgiving towards those who tried to kill him and kicked him out of the city he was born? "Love thy enemy was, without a doubt in my military mind, a teaching of Issa. Wish I could follow that one." yes, you wish but you don't do that. no one does it, even the so called christinains love their enemies. ;-) let me tell you once more this, mad mad. there is no difference in the teachings of moses, mohammad and jesus. you can separate them as you wish, but you are wrong. there were no differences in the teachings of prophet jesus, moses and muhammad. jesus never rejected islam; he practiced it. here is what the bible says about jesus--true or not. "In the NT, we read about Jesus commanding his followers to buy swords "He said to them, 'But now if you have a purse, take it and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. (Luke 22:36)" We also read about Jesus slaying his enemies "But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them- bring them here and kill them in front of me. (Luke 19:27)" We also read about Jesus bringing corruption and destruction to earth rather than peace "Do not suppose that I [Jesus] have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. (Matthew 10:34)" Jesus ordering the killing of apostates (those who desert him) "I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away an withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. (John 15:5-6)" This statement does encourage killing apostates, because the Bible does order the killing of apostates in both the Old and New Testaments. Jesus hitting others with a whip, not that it makes him bad, but certainly takes his "perfection" away "So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. To those who sold doves he said, 'Get these out of here! How dare you turn my Father's house into a market!.' (John 2:15)" Jesus not respecting the life of the innocent animals, which again takes away his "perfection" from him "He [Jesus] said to them, 'Go!' so they came out and went into the pigs, and the whole herd rushed down the steep bank into the lake and died in the water. (Matthew 8:32)" Jesus calling the Jews, the masters, and the Philistines their dogs. Also, Jesus refusing to heal a sick child until he [Jesus] was pressured by the mother's begging. Does Jesus like to be begged? "A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, 'Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession. Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, 'Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.' He [Jesus] answered, 'I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.' The woman came and knelt before him. 'Lord, help me!' she said. He [Jesus] replied 'It is not right to take the children's [Jews] bread [blessings and miracles reserved for them] and toss it to their dogs [the Canaanite, or the Philistines].' 'Yes, Lord' she said, 'but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table.' Then Jesus answered, 'Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.' And her daughter was healed from that very hour. (Matthew 15:22-28)" Personally speaking, I as a Palestinian [from the Philistines] and as a respectful Muslim to Jesus don't think that Jesus was that low and ridiculous to call the Jews the masters and the Palestinians their dogs!. It's quite obvious that the Jews had corrupted the Bible and added such filthy quotes that Jesus never spoke!. Beside, this seems to be a quite clear a contradiction from the Bible, because Jesus did call the Jews hypocrites and he never liked them, and they were the ones who crucified him. If Jesus did indeed call the Palestinians the Jews' dogs, then I think that Allah Almighty had punished him well on that cross that he got crucified on from the "masters", probably his "masters" as well. What a nice way to get nailed with your hands and feet on the cross from those evil doers whom you praised over the innocent poor "their dogs" as you called them. It would feel very good, wouldn't it? Jesus taught his followers to hate! "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters- yes, even his own life- he cannot be my disciple. (Luke 14:26)" Jesus never used the word "family." He never married or fathered children. To his own mother, he said, "Woman, what have I to do with thee? (John 2:4)" Jesus didn't come to free slaves nor came to stop the brutal slavery "That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows. But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked. (Luke 12:47-48)" What Moral Advice Did Jesus Give? "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it. (Matthew 19:11-12)" Some believers, including church father Origin, took this verse literally and castrated themselves. Even metaphorically, this advice is in poor taste. Also, for those priests and ministers who never marry and supposedly remain "virgins" for the rest of their lives, how can they be purified from sins, when all they do is masturbate 6,7 times everyday of their lives??? How can any Christian explain the child molestation and rapping that had been done by the priests and ministers of churches? Jesus is totally irrational!! If you do something wrong with your eye or hand, cut/pluck it off (Matthew 5:29-30, in a sexual context). Marrying a divorced woman is adultery. (Matthew 5:32) Don't plan for the future. (Matthew 6:34) Don't save money. (Matthew 6:19-20) Don't become wealthy. (Mark 10:21-25) Sell everything and give it to the poor. (Luke 12:33) Don't work to obtain food. (John 6:27) Don't have sexual urges. (Matthew 5:28) Make people want to persecute you. (Matthew 5:11) If someone steals from you, don't try to get it back. (Luke 6:30) If someone hits you, invite them to do it again. (Matthew 5:39) If you lose a lawsuit, give more than the judgment. (Matthew 5:40) If someone forces you to walk a mile, walk two miles. (Matthew 5:41) If anyone asks you for anything, give it to them without question. (Matthew 5:42) The above statements are beautiful in terms of teaching good morals and ethics, but they are quite irrational and extreme. Jesus was totally unrealistic in most of his teachings. We can't use them in our daily lives. They're obviously useless!. Was Jesus Reliable? Jesus told his disciples that they would not die before his second coming: "There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom" (Matthew 16:28). "Behold, I come quickly." (Revelation 3:11) It's been 2,000 years, and believers are still waiting for his "quick" return. Jesus said that whoever calls somebody a "fool" shall be in danger of hell fire (Matthew 5:22), yet he called people "fools" himself (Matthew 23:17). We also read about children bashing in the Old Testament without any mercy as well: "O Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction, happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us- he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks. (Psalm 137:8-9)" And also we read "Whoever is captured will be thrust through; all who are caught will fall by the sword. Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses will be looted and their wives ravished. (Isaiah 13:16)" Ask a Christian friend whether he or she should feel happy to dash a child against the rocks. Your friend will most likely stare at you in horror, much less believe this idea exists in their sacred Bible. Many Churches have found these verses as quite embarrassing. It gives no wonder then why priests, Jews, and Christians alike, have quoted from Psalm 137, but always leaving out this last verse. These verses are never taught in Sunday schools. Let us look at the wonderful God of the religion of Islam Allah Almighty in the Holy Quran: Let us look at Verse 2:163 "And your God Is One God: There is no god But He, Most Gracious, Most Merciful." Also in 2:173 "He hath only forbidden you Dead meat, and blood, And the flesh of swine, And that on which any other name hath been invoked besides that of Allah. But if one is forced by necessity, without willful disobedience, nor transgressing due limits then he is guiltless. For Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful." Also in 3:89 "Except for those that repent (Even) after that, And make amends; for Allah is Oft-Forgiving Most Merciful." In 2:192 "But if they cease, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful." Here we see even with enemies, Allah Almighty's heart is wide open for love, mercy and forgiveness. In 2:199 "Then pass on at a quick pace from the place whence it is usual for the multitude so to do, and ask For Allah's forgiveness. For Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful." In 3:155 "Those of you who turned back on the day the two hosts met, it was Satan who caused them to fail, because of some (evil) They had done. But Allah has blotted out (their fault): For Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Forbearing." Here we see how merciful and forbearing Allah Almighty really is. He forgives those who allow themselves to be led by Satan, because his love and mercy to us is greater than this universe. In 4:17 "Allah accepts the repentance of those who do evil in ignorance and repent soon afterwards; to them will Allah turn in mercy: For Allah is full of knowledge and wisdom." Here again we see that Allah Almighty's heart is always open for people. His love is greater than anyone's. In 4:19 "O ye believe! ye are forbidden to inherit Women against their will. Nor should ye treat them with harshness, that ye may take away part of the dower ye have given them except where they have been guilty of open lewdness; on the contrary live with them on a footing of kindness and equity. If ye take a dislike to them it may be that ye dislike A thing, and Allah brings about Through it a great deal of good." Here we see Allah Almighty's mercy is so great that he commands us to be fair, nice and kind to our wives and to treat them with respect, and to never dislike them because Allah Almighty places a great deal of good in women. The above verses from the Holy Quran and thousands other more that are not mentioned here show clearly the Great Mercy, Love, Justice, and Forgiveness of our God Allah Almighty. Do you honestly think that if Jesus was the God of the Holy Quran, he would kill innocent children for no reason? "
|
| | Saturday, September 30, 2000 - 07:32 am Asad You did it again. You're reading the Bible as if you were reading the Qur'an. Looking for individual quotes and trying the analyze the Bible like a lawyer. I told you once and I'll tell you again, the meaning of the Bible can only be taken in the context of the whole - individual verses are useless. You have to absorb the whole, because, as I said, it is a collection of accounts written by men. It is a historical work. It has been translated many times. It is neccessarily imperfect. It's value lies in the message of the two testaments taken as a whole. You are trying to cite individual versus, compare it's consistency or lack thereof with the Qur'an, and use this as evidence that the Bible is invalid and therefore the Qur'an must be right. In short, you can't see the forest for (Because of) the trees.
|
| | Saturday, September 30, 2000 - 01:52 pm "You have to absorb the whole, because, as I said, it is a collection of accounts written by men. It is a historical work. It has been translated many times. It is neccessarily imperfect." yes, the bible is neccessarily imperfect (with or without taking in context of the whole bible). "It's value lies in the message of the two testaments taken as a whole." if one testament is imperfect and the other is not, the whole can be taken it's value. if the teaching of jesus would not have been corrupted, Allah would not have sent another book that corrects the corrupted teachings. "In short, you can't see the forest for (Because of) the trees." i know corruption when i see it. ;-)
|
| | Saturday, September 30, 2000 - 03:17 pm "You have to absorb the whole, because, as I said, it is a collection of accounts written by men. It is a historical work. It has been translated many times. It is neccessarily imperfect." yes, the bible is neccessarily imperfect (with or without taking in context of the whole bible). "It's value lies in the message of the two testaments taken as a whole." if one testament is imperfect and the other is not, the whole can NOT be taken it's value. if the teaching of jesus would not have been corrupted, Allah would not have sent another book that corrects the corrupted teachings. "In short, you can't see the forest for (Because of) the trees." i know corruption when i see it. ;-)
|
| | Monday, October 02, 2000 - 03:17 am Asad All historical works are corrupted. They are all neccessarily incomplete. Because there are too many details in any one event to accurately reflect the whole picture. Since the Bible is an historical work with multiple authors from different eras (unlike the Qur'an, which is a story told or relayed by a single man) is must be disjointed. That does not mean it has no value. You just don't understand the value. That doesn't mean it doesn't have any. Einstein wrote books on quatum physics that I don't understand, it doesn't mean they don't have value. Your view of the Bible is tainted, was always tainted from the first. You were born a Muslim, into a Muslim family and were conditioned to believe that the Bible is useless. No Muslim can objectively read the Bible or any other religious work, because the day he does he ceases to become a Muslim. To read another religious work with objectivity, to really try and get at it's essence, you must be open to the poosibility that it is correct in theme. News reporters have this same problem. They begin a story with a preconceived notion, and then they look for evidence which supports their position. Contrary evidence is disregarded. In short, your standing as a Muslim makes you unsuitable for critique of any religious document because you never read it with an open mind. To have an open mind means youmust accept from the beginning that perhaps Islam is not the only way, and you could never do that.
|
| | Monday, October 02, 2000 - 03:47 am "No Muslim can objectively read the Bible or any other religious work, because the day he does he ceases to become a Muslim." i have read the bible many many times and other religious work and i'm still a muslim. ;-) "To read another religious work with objectivity, to really try and get at it's essence, you must be open to the poosibility that it is correct in theme. News reporters have this same problem. They begin a story with a preconceived notion, and then they look for evidence which supports their position. In short, your standing as a Muslim makes you unsuitable for critique of any religious document because you never read it with an open mind. To have an open mind means youmust accept from the beginning that perhaps Islam is not the only way, and you could never do that." that is not the truth. many ex-christians who had preconceived notions about the Qur'an read the Qur'an; they thought that the Qu'ran was incorrect. they went out to find corruption in the Qur'an. they could not find corruption in the Qur'an as they were told. then, they became muslims after they read it. ;-)
|
| | Wednesday, October 04, 2000 - 01:35 am Asad You're not listening. First let's start with this notion of corruption. I don't have to "Prove" that the Qur'an is not the word of God for me not to believe it. This isn't a scientific equation. In my first sentance I did say "objectively". I didn't say you hadn't read the book, I said you hadn't read it objectively. Of course you lack objectivity, because to have objectivity means you must have doubt the Qur'an is wrong - and you have stated many times you don't have doubt. Secondly, as I said before, to honestly appraise something you must be open to the possibility that what you are reading or studying could be correct. Any Christian who opens the Qur'an with his heart already committed won't open his mind. Christians who made the conversion did so because their hearts weren't truly committed. They fostered doubt. If they didn't foster doubt, then regardless of facts or rationale they wouldn't change their minds. When you read the Bible you have already made up your mind that Islam is the only way. This is by your own admission. It doesn't matter a hoot what is in the Bible or any other book. I would challenge you to find an inconsistency in the book of Mormon - the Mormons effectively make all the claims you make. Nevertheless, you would never read it with an open mind. To do so means you first must concede the Qur'an might not be devine. This is a plainly logical sequence a 10 year old could follow which you just don't want to admit.
|
| | Wednesday, October 04, 2000 - 05:16 am "I don't have to "Prove" that the Qur'an is not the word of God for me not to believe it. This isn't a scientific equation." of course you can not prove that the Qu'ran is incorrect and your saying that the Qur'an is incorrect does not make the Qur'an incorrect either. ;-) like i said, if the Qur'an was like the bible and if it had one testament that was imperfect (contradictions) the whole Qu'ran could not be taken as true. since you can not bring any evidence against the Qur'an (but just claims and accusations against the Qur'an that it is not correct), then you have no case. that is what you are not listening, mad mac ;-) "Of course you lack objectivity, because to have objectivity means you must have doubt the Qur'an is wrong - and you have stated many times you don't have doubt." you wish that i had doubts about the Qur'an, but that is your wishful thinking. if i had a doubt about the Qur'an, i would not consider myself a muslim. i'm not like you. i'm a muslim, remember. and you are a kufar. ;-) "Secondly, as I said before, to honestly appraise something you must be open to the possibility that what you are reading or studying could be correct. Any Christian who opens the Qur'an with his heart already committed won't open his mind. Christians who made the conversion did so because their hearts weren't truly committed. They fostered doubt. If they didn't foster doubt, then regardless of facts or rationale they wouldn't change their minds." that is not true. many enemies of islam went out to prove and try to find something that they could use against the Qur'an; they believed that the Qur'an is not correct, but when they failed their mission, they then opened their eyes and saw the truth----some stayed on their kufur state and others accepted the truth and became muslims. "To do so means you first must concede the Qur'an might not be devine. This is a plainly logical sequence a 10 year old could follow which you just don't want to admit." when the Qur'an says that a book like the bible has contradictions, i first believe what the Qur'an says and when i investigate and read the bible and the case against the bible by the Qur'an, i see the contradictions in it. to say that a kufar who believes that the Qur'an has contradictions before he read it---would not later changed his mind (when he can not find contradiction in the Qur'an) and would not became a muslim---is illogical thinking on your part, mad mac. ;-)
|
| | Wednesday, October 04, 2000 - 05:35 am On the first subject, I am not trying to prove the Qur'an is incorrect, although in fact I have already pointed out inconsistencies which you simply ignored. That having been said, whether or not one can "prove" the Qur'an has inconsistencies or is incorrect on certain points is not what I'm getting at. My point is you are NOT OPEN TO THE POSSIBILITY. It would not matter what else you read. Your mind is closed - you said so yourself. Also, I am not trying to prove the Qur'an is incorrect. I already know that it is not devine, I don't need to prove it. My beliefs are only for me, not for anyone else. I don't even try and tell my girlfriend what she should believe. You write that I wish you had doubts about the Qur'an - no I don't. I don't care what you believe any more than I care about what my girlfriend believes. As for the conversion of enemies of Islam, again you did not pay attention. It could well be that some people read the Qur'an with the intent to prove it was wrong and converted. So???? Obviously there hearts weren't committed to Christianity - if they were they wouldn't have changed. Don't you see what I'm saying. If your heart is committed, then facts won't mean a thing, they will not change your mind. Reading another version of the same story that's more logical won't mean anything because you aren't really listening. You can't. You made your decision first. It's not a question of thinking, it's a question of emotion. Faith, at the end of the day, is not tied to logic. You should know that. Lastly, I challenge you to find flaws in the book of Mormon. Prove it is wrong. Remember that while the Mormons use the Bible, God told Joseph Smith that it was corrupted, an incomplete story, and that none of the existing Christian faiths were quite correct.
|
| | Wednesday, October 04, 2000 - 06:15 am "On the first subject, I am not trying to prove the Qur'an is incorrect, although in fact I have already pointed out inconsistencies which you simply ignored." i must have missed the inconsistencies you said that the Qur'an has. please post it again so i can respond, okay, mad mac? "Your mind is closed - you said so yourself." i didn't say my mind is closed. you are lying, mad mac "I am not trying to prove the Qur'an is incorrect." i'm saying you can not, even if you wanted to. "I already know that it is not devine, I don't need to prove it." you can not prove it, you just think you know it. ;-) "My beliefs are only for me, not for anyone else." i know that. "You write that I wish you had doubts about the Qur'an - no I don't." but you lied and said i had a doubt. if i had a doubt about the Qur'an, i would not be a muslim. "As for the conversion of enemies of Islam, again you did not pay attention. It could well be that some people read the Qur'an with the intent to prove it was wrong and converted. So???? Obviously there hearts weren't committed to Christianity..if they were they wouldn't have changed." that is not the truth. these were die-hard christians who believed that the Qur'an was wrong and the bible was correct. again, to say that a kufar who believes that the Qur'an has contradictions before he read it---would not later changed his mind (when he can not find contradiction in the Qur'an) and would not became a muslim---is illogical thinking on your part, mad mac. ;-) "Lastly, I challenge you to find flaws in the book of Mormon. Prove it is wrong. Remember that while the Mormons use the Bible, God told Joseph Smith that it was corrupted, an incomplete story, and that none of the existing Christian faiths were quite correct." first of all, the joseph smith guy you are talking about was no prophet of Allah. what jesus taught was correct, but the books of the bible that came after jesus are the ones that are corrupted. what jesus taught were correct. so if joseph smith himself said his god told him that the morman's bible is corrupted, then corrupted things have flaws, right? ;-)
|